natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission was responsible for monitoring the Member States’ efforts and ensuring compliance with EU law. 
Komisija je bila odgovorna za spremljanje prizadevanj držav članic in zagotavljanje skladnosti z zakonodajo EU.
In the Member States covered by the audit, the rules on the durability of project results were limited to those laid down in EU law (see Annex VI). 
V državah članicah, ki so bile vključene v revizijo, so bila pravila o trajnosti rezultatov projektov omejena na tista, določena v zakonodaji EU (glej Prilogo VI).
Based on this approach, they accepted the OPs in the 2000-2006 and the 2007-2013 programme periods not laying down stricter conditions in order to promote long-term results, such as, where appropriate, extending the durability period beyond the minimum period stipulated in the regulations43. 
1083/2006. 33 spodbujanje dolgoročnih rezultatov, kot je npr. po potrebi podaljšanje obdobja trajnosti, ki bi bilo daljše od minimalnega obdobja, določenega v uredbah.43 59.
59. Finally, with few exceptions, the MAs did not insert critical conditions in the grant agreements on achieving long-term results. 
Treba je omeniti tudi, da organi upravljanja – razen redkih izjem – v sporazume o nepovratnih sredstvih niso vključili neobhodnih pogojev v zvezi z doseganjem dolgoročnih rezultatov.
They did not promote durability issues through more effective conditions, e.g. setting key binding targets on employment and targets concerning Mainly Article 30(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1260/1999 and Article 57 of Regulation (EU) No 1083/2006. 
V večini sporazumov o nepovratnih sredstvih so bile le ponovno navedene zakonodajne zahteve EU. Področja trajnosti prav tako niso spodbujali tako, da bi določili bolj uspešne pogoje npr. ključne zavezujoče ciljne vrednosti v zvezi z zaposlovanjem ter ciljne vrednosti v zvezi s proizvodnjo in ravnijo produktivnosti ali konkurenčnostjo in inovacijami, ki bi jih bilo treba ohranjati v nekem minimalnem obdobju.
Lack of focus on durability in project selection 60. 
Premajhen poudarek na trajnosti pri izbiri projektov 60.
Regarding the selection procedures under the OPs, we analysed the relevance of the projects to the OP’s objectives and we examined the existence and use of criteria that could be linked to durability. 
Sodišče je v zvezi z izbirnimi postopki v okviru operativnih programov analiziralo ustreznost projektov glede na cilje operativnega programa, preučilo pa je tudi obstoj in uporabo meril, ki bi lahko bila povezana s trajnostjo.
We also checked whether other important aspects for the durability of results were taken into account such as innovation or the avoidance of deadweight. 
Preverilo je tudi, ali so bili upoštevani drugi vidiki, pomembni za trajnost rezultatov, kot so inovacije ali preprečevanje mrtvih izgub.
The fact that, overall, the audited projects, were consistent with the overarching OP goals is a good indication that the selection procedures allowed for the selection of relevant projects. 
Dejstvo, da so bili revidirani projekti na splošno skladni s krovnimi cilji operativnega programa, je dober pokazatelj, da so izbirni postopki omogočali izbiro ustreznih projektov.
However, at the selection stage, none of the OPs covered by the audit sufficiently prioritised the achievement of durable results. 
Vendar v fazi izbora nobeden od operativnih programov, ki jih je zajela revizija, ni v zadostni meri prednostno obravnaval doseganja trajnih rezultatov.
In particular, the risks to the projects’ long term results and the mitigating actions were rarely indicated in the applications or in the documents on the selection procedures. 
Zlasti tveganja, povezana z dolgoročnimi rezultati projektov in blažilnimi ukrepi, so bila v vlogah ali v dokumentih o izbirnih postopkih redko navedena.
Although selection criteria usually featured a number of objectives and targets (such as boosting the asset base of the companies, improving the business potential and competitiveness, creating new jobs or saving existing ones), project applications were not rewarded for having the potential to generate long lasting results. 
Čeprav so izbirna merila običajno vključevala številne cilje in ciljne vrednosti (kot so krepitev osnovnih sredstev podjetij, izboljšanje poslovnega potenciala in konkurenčnosti, ustvarjanje novih delovnih mest ali reševanje obstoječih), projektne vloge niso dobile dobre ocene za to, ker bi imele potencial za ustvarjanje dolgoročnih rezultatov.
The MAs did not assess the projects’ potential long-term economic results at the selection stage. 
Organi upravljanja v fazi izbora niso ocenili potencialnih dolgoročnih gospodarskih rezultatov projektov.
Also, in most cases, innovation was among the main objectives for productive investment in the OPs examined. 
Poleg tega so bile v preučenih operativnih programih med glavnimi cilji za produktivne naložbe v večini primerov inovacije.
However, when evaluating the project applications the projects’ degree of innovation was practically disregarded. 
Vendar pa se stopnja inovativnosti projekta pri vrednotenju prijav za projekte praktično ni upoštevala.
Often, support was provided to relatively simple industrial processes with a higher risk of being short-lived, thus not generating durable results. 
Pogosto je bila podpora zagotovljena razmeroma preprostim industrijskim procesom z večjim tveganjem, da bodo kratkoročni in zato ne bodo ustvarjali trajnostnih rezultatov.
We found only eight projects44 in total under the Italy, Saxony and Czech Republic OPs where beneficiaries had invested in innovative industrial processes 33 44 Projects 12, 13, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27 and 31. 
Sodišče je odkrilo skupno samo osem projektov44 v okviru operativnih programov Italije, dežele Saške in Češke republike, pri katerih so upravičenci investirali v inovativne industrijske procese ali proizvode.
EU practices show that beneficiaries are encouraged to create products that are differentiated, innovative, offering added value, to ensure their projects’ durability. 
Prakse EU kažejo, da se upravičenci spodbujajo k ustvarjanju proizvodov, ki so drugačni in inovativni ter imajo dodano vrednost, s čimer se zagotovi trajnost projektov.
Projects with a strong potential for innovation and competitiveness are more viable. 
Projekti z velikim potencialom za inovativnost in konkurenčnost so bolj izvedljivi.
The risk of deadweight loss was not taken into account when selecting the projects, as the MAs did not consider the private entities’ capacity to finance projects themselves or to bear a higher share of the cost. 
Pri izbiri projektov se ni upoštevalo tveganje mrtvih izgub, saj organi upravljanja niso upoštevali zmogljivosti zasebnih subjektov, da bi projekte financirali sami ali krili večji delež stroškov.
For example, an indication of deadweight loss is where the project promoter has already commenced a project in advance of the grant award, as was the case in six projects audited. 
Kazalnik mrtvih izgub je na primer to, da je nosilec projekta začel izvajati projekt že pred dodelitvijo nepovratnih sredstev, kot je bilo pri šestih revidiranih projektih.
In such cases, there is a risk that they would have undertaken the project without the aid or that they had been promised a grant in advance of the project assessment. 
V takih primerih obstaja tveganje, da bi se projekt izvajal tudi brez pomoči ali da so bila zanj obljubljena nepovratna sredstva, preden je bil projekt ocenjen.
Another sign of potential deadweight loss is a beneficiary being awarded more than one EU grant within the space of a few years only and this not being taken into account by the selection committee. 
Še en znak potencialne mrtve izgube je, kadar upravičenec v obdobju nekaj let več kot enkrat dobi nepovratna sredstva EU, izbirna komisija pa tega ne upošteva.
This was the case in 15 of the 41 audited projects. 
Tako je bilo pri 15 od 41 revidiranih projektov.
Finally, we found that eight of the projects46 audited could have been completed on a similar scale and to a similar timeline solely with the firms’ own funds or by resorting to bank loans without benefiting from grants (see Figure 4). 
Sodišče je ugotovilo tudi, da bi osem od revidiranih projektov46 lahko bilo zaključenih v podobnem obsegu in časovnem okviru tudi samo z lastnimi sredstvi podjetij ali s pomočjo bančnih posojil, torej brez dodelitve nepovratnih sredstev (glej sliko 4).
This was the case in particular where the companies were part of a corporate group. 
To je bilo zlasti v primerih, kadar so bila podjetja del skupine podjetij.
As a consequence, such use of public funds has reduced the required private investments. 
Zaradi tega je taka raba javnih sredstev zmanjšala potrebne zasebne naložbe.
Examples of projects that received grants despite not encountering market failures are also shown in Box 6. 
Primeri projektov, ki so pridobili nepovratna sredstva, čeprav se niso spopadali z nedelovanjem trga, so prav tako prikazani v okviru 6.
For example, a company in the Czech Republic (project 9) had received three grants in five years. 
45 Podjetje v Češki republiki (projekt 9) je na primer v petih letih trikrat prejelo nepovratna sredstva.
The company had even stated in its application that no loans or grants would be needed to implement the project. 
Družba je v vlogi celo navedla, da posojila ali nepovratna sredstva za izvajanje projekta niso potrebna.
34 45 46 Projects 3, 9, 14, 25, 28, 29, 31 and 41. 
46 Projekti 3, 9, 14, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31 in 41.
Figure 4 - Would the projects have been carried out without the EU grants? 35 Source: ECA’s analysis, based on information provided by MAs or project beneficiaries. Box 6 - Examples of projects not encountering market failures Project 19 (Saxony/Germany OP) - Extension of a production site (construction of a production hall and purchase of specialised machinery and installations) Total investment costs: 21.6 million euro. 
V obdobju, ki je sledilo, je Komisija sicer zahtevala, da organi upravljanja uvedejo temeljne kazalnike za izložke in rezultate, toda to se ni nanašalo 36 Okvir 6 – Primeri projektov, ki se niso spopadali z nedelovanjem trga Projekt 19 (Saška / operativni program Nemčije) – Razširitev proizvodnega obrata (izgradnja proizvodne hale ter nakup specializiranih strojev in naprav) Skupni stroški naložbe: 21,6 milijona EUR.
Total grant amount: 5.4 million euro, including 4.1 million euro from the ERDF. 
Skupni znesek nepovratnih sredstev: 5,4 milijona EUR, vključno s 4,1 milijona EUR iz ESRR.
Project implemented from October 2011 to October 2013. 
Projekt se je izvajal od oktobra 2011 do oktobra 2013.
The project was successful in terms of helping the company in Saxony grow and create robust employment. 
Projekt je bil uspešen v tem smislu, da je družbi na Saškem omogočil rast in ustvarjanje trdnih delovnih mest.
However, at the time the investments were being planned and designed in 2007/08, there were no particular market failures or financial gaps which needed to be filled by a public grant. 
Vendar v obdobju 2007/2008, ko so se naložbe načrtovale in zasnovale, ni bilo zaznati posebnega nedelovanja trga ali finančnih vrzeli, ki bi jih bilo treba zapolniti z javnimi nepovratnimi sredstvi.
The firm had reached its full production capacity in Saxony and had to make additional investments if it was to expand its operations. 
Družba je na Saškem dosegla svojo polno proizvodno zmogljivost in je morala izvesti dodatne naložbe, če je želela razširiti svoje dejavnosti.
Being part of a large company group, it could have made these strategic investments from its own resources and by taking out loans. 
Ker je bila del velike skupine družb, bi te strateške naložbe lahko izvedla iz lastnih sredstev in z najemom posojil.
Projects 29 and 31 (Puglia OP) - A printing firm and a manufacturer of aircrafts parts, total investment costs all projects 30.5 million euro, including 9.8 million euro from ERDF) Total investment costs: 25.1 million euro and 5.4 million euro respectively. 
Projekta 29 in 31 (operativni program Apulije) – Tiskarsko podjetje in proizvajalec delov za zrakoplove; skupni stroški naložbe za oba projekta 30,5 milijona EUR (vključno z 9,8 milijona EUR iz ESRR) Skupni stroški naložbe: 25,1 milijona EUR in 5,4 milijona EUR.
Total grant amount: 16.6 million euro (including 8.3 million from the ERDF) and 3 million euro (1.5 million ERDF). 
Skupni znesek nepovratnih sredstev: 16,6 milijona EUR (vključno z 8,3 milijona EUR iz ESRR) in 3 milijoni EUR (1,5 milijona EUR iz ESRR).
The beneficiaries were either part of a leading national group and consortia of SMEs enjoying a stable position on the market. 
Upravičenci so bili bodisi del vodilne nacionalne skupine ali konzorcija malih in srednjih podjetij, ki uživajo trden položaj na trgu.
And the beneficiaries’ revenues had increased over the years preceding the project application. 
Poleg tega so se prihodki upravičencev v letih pred vložitvijo vloge za projekt povečali.
In light of their financial situation and consolidated position on the market, the beneficiary firms could have obtained bank loans for financing the projects. 
Upravičena podjetja bi glede na svoj finančni položaj in utrjen položaj na trgu lahko dobila bančna posojila za financiranje projektov.
However, none of these referred to long-lasting results. 
na dolgoročne rezultate.
The indicators were selected by the MAs based on their OP strategies and grant types and did not allow for a comparison of achievements across the regions. 
Kazalnike so izbrali organi upravljanja na podlagi svojih strategij operativnih programov in vrst nepovratnih sredstev, ti pa niso omogočali primerjave dosežkov v različnih regijah.
Some of the output indicators were not sufficiently specific but only rather generally formulated in the relevant documents in relation to the projects from the 2000-2006 and the 2007-2013 programme periods. 
Nekateri kazalniki rezultatov niso bili dovolj podrobno opredeljeni, temveč samo na splošno oblikovani v ustreznih dokumentih v zvezi s projekti iz programskih obdobij 2000– 2006 in 2007–2013.
Result indicators were also generally poorly defined, in that they did not set out what the support programmes aimed to achieve47. 
Kazalniki rezultatov so bili tudi na splošno slabo opredeljeni, saj niso določali, kaj naj bi se s programi podpore doseglo47.
A lack of relevant, qualitative and quantifiable indicators to measure outputs and results prevented a comprehensive assessment of the project effects (see examples in Box 7). 
Pomanjkanje relevantnih, kvalitativnih in količinsko opredeljivih kazalnikov za merjenje izložkov in rezultatov je preprečilo celovito oceno učinkov projekta (glej primere v okviru 7).
Even where the result indicators addressed the direct and immediate objectives of the projects to some extent, none of them were used to measure the durability of the project results, activities or operations (see also the section below on project monitoring). 
Tudi kadar so kazalniki rezultatov v neki meri obravnavali neposredne in takojšnje cilje projektov, pa se nobeden od njih ni uporabljal za merjenje trajnosti rezultatov, dejavnosti ali operacij projektov (glej tudi spodnji oddelek o spremljanju projektov).
While it is important to have performance indicators in place, care has to be taken to avoid unnecessarily high numbers of them48. 
Pomembno je, da se uvedejo kazalniki smotrnosti, vendar pa je treba paziti, da jih ni več, kot je potrebno48.
This was also criticised in ECA’s Annual Report 2016, see paragraph 6.76 in Chapter 6 on Cohesion. 
47 48 To je bilo kritično obravnavano tudi v Letnem poročilu Evropskega računskega sodišča za leto 2016, glej odstavek 6.76 v poglavju 6 o koheziji.
As we reported in Special Report No 2/2017: The Commission’s negotiation of 2014-2020 Partnership Agreements and programmes in Cohesion: spending more targeted on Europe 2020 priorities, but increasingly complex arrangements to measure performance. 
2/2017 – Pogajanja Komisije o partnerskih sporazumih in programih na področju kohezije za obdobje 2014–2020: poraba je bolj osredotočena na prioritete strategije Evropa 2020, vendar je ureditev za merjenje smotrnosti vedno bolj zapletena.
This report recommends identifying the indicators “which are the most relevant and best suited to determining the impact of EU interventions”. 36 47 48 
V poročilu se priporoča opredelitev kazalnikov, ki „so najrelevantnejši in najprimernejši za ugotavljanje učinka intervencij EU”.
In a few cases, the target values for the indicators were unrealistic: in two cases (projects 19 and 22), the job targets were exceeded by around 100 %, and in one case (project 11), the energy savings made were almost three times higher than those forecast in the planning documents. 
V nekaj primerih so bile ciljne vrednosti nerealistične: v dveh primerih (projekta 19 in 22) so bili cilji za delovna mesta preseženi za približno 100 %, v enem primeru (projekt 11) pa so bili doseženi energetski prihranki skoraj trikrat višji od napovedi v dokumentih za načrtovanje.
The mid-term evaluation of the Czech OP concluded that the various targets set at OP level were insufficiently ambitious and therefore recommended increasing them by 200 % or more. 
V vmesni oceni operativnega programa Češke je bilo ugotovljeno, da različni cilji, določeni na ravni operativnega programa, niso bili dovolj ambiciozni, zato je bilo priporočeno, naj se povečajo za 200 % ali več.
Project monitoring not focused enough on durability 72. 
Spremljanje projektov ni bilo dovolj osredotočeno na trajnost 72.
Despite the lack of indicators, we found that the monitoring of project implementation was generally appropriate. 
Sodišče je kljub pomanjkanju kazalnikov ugotovilo, da je bilo spremljanje izvajanja projektov na splošno ustrezno.
However, it was very output-based and was not harmonised, either in terms of the monitoring and verification of data or with regard to the availability of electronic reporting tools. 
Vendar je v veliki meri temeljilo na izložkih in ni bilo usklajeno, in sicer niti glede spremljanja in preverjanja podatkov niti glede razpoložljivosti elektronskih orodij za poročanje.
The project control and monitoring systems in place in the regions covered by the audit helped to ensure that the outputs were delivered by and large as planned on the project completion date and that the grants had been utilised for purchasing the eligible assets. 
Sistemi kontrole in spremljanja projektov, vzpostavljeni v regijah, zajetih v revizijo, so pripomogli k zagotovitvi, da so bili izložki na splošno doseženi po načrtu na dan zaključka projekta in da so bila nepovratna sredstva porabljena za nakup upravičenih sredstev.
However, the MAs did not effectively monitor project durability in terms of both the legal requirements and other aspects indicating long-lasting results. 
Vendar pa organi upravljanja niso uspešno spremljali trajnosti projektov v smislu zakonodajnih zahtev in drugih vidikov, ki kažejo dolgoročne rezultate.
At project completion, the beneficiaries were required to provide a final report on their spending on the projects (outputs), but not always on the direct results achieved (see Annex VII for the various monitoring requirements in relation to the audited OPs). 
Upravičenci so morali ob zaključku projekta predložiti končno poročilo o svoji porabi za projekte (izložki), ne pa vedno tudi o doseženih neposrednih rezultatih (glej Prilogo VII za različne zahteve v zvezi s spremljanjem, ki se nanašajo na revidirane operativne programe).
how to deal with cases where the results had not yet materialised at project completion and would only show at a later stage. 
Poleg tega organi upravljanja niso predvideli, kako ravnati v primerih, kadar rezultati ob zaključku projekta še niso vidni in se bodo pokazali šele v poznejši fazi.
Overall, the monitoring, after project completion, of the legal durability requirements remained limited in scope and varied between OPs. 
Na splošno je bilo spremljanje zakonodajnih zahtev glede trajnosti po zaključku projektov še vedno omejenega obsega in se je razlikovalo po operativnih programih.
The reporting and monitoring arrangements and the respective duties of the authorities and the beneficiaries after project completion were not always clear or formally specified in administrative documents in all OPs49. 
Ureditev spremljanja in poročanja ter zadevne naloge organov in upravičencev po zaključku projektov niso bile vedno jasne ali formalno določene v upravnih dokumentih vseh operativnih programov49.
Nor did they have IT systems to collect data on the durability, and none of the MAs were able to present robust statistics on compliance with the legal durability requirements. 
sistematičnega svetovanja v zvezi s spremljanjem trajnosti. Prav tako niso imeli sistemov IT za zbiranje podatkov o trajnosti in nobeden od njih ni mogel predložiti zanesljivih statističnih podatkov o izpolnjevanju zakonodajnih zahtev glede trajnosti.
As there was no legal requirement for them to continue doing so, the MAs stopped following up on the evolution of the projects immediately after the end of the legal durability period. 
Ker ni bilo zakonodajne zahteve, na podlagi katere bi morali to še naprej početi, so organi upravljanja prenehali spremljati razvoj projektov takoj po izteku zakonskega obdobja trajnosti.
The above-mentioned lack of indicators and limited monitoring after project completion prevented the durability of project results from being measured. 
Zgoraj navedeno pomanjkanje kazalnikov in omejeno spremljanje po zaključku projekta sta preprečila merjenje trajnosti projektnih rezultatov.
They were also one reason for the difficulty in identifying the causal links between the EU funds disbursed for private-sector development and the economic effects generated for the businesses and the regions. 
To sta bila tudi razloga za težave pri opredelitvi vzročne povezave med sredstvi EU, izplačanimi za razvoj zasebnega sektorja, in gospodarskimi učinki na podjetja in regije.
Insufficient use of ex-post evaluations 76. 
Nezadostna uporaba naknadnega vrednotenja 76.
We did not find any evaluations of the productive investment programmes that included a specific assessment of the durability of results. 
Sodišče ni našlo nobenih vrednotenj programov produktivnih naložb, ki bi vključevali posebno oceno trajnosti rezultatov.
Due to the limited scope of the monitoring of the legally required durability, the lack of any IT system to collect the data related to this monitoring and the absence of any long-term monitoring after the end of the durability period no data was available on the durability of the results attained by the ERDF For instance, for the Austrian OP and also for some specific measures under the Italian central and regional OPs. 
Zaradi omejenega obsega spremljanja zakonsko določene trajnosti, neobstoja sistema IT za zbiranje podatkov v zvezi s tem spremljanjem in neobstoja dolgoročnega spremljanja po izteku obdobja trajnosti ni bilo na voljo nobenih podatkov o trajnosti rezultatov, ki so bili doseženi v okviru projektov ESRR, niti o gospodarskem razvoju upravičenih podjetij ali učinkih projektov na regije.
This made it impossible to identify lessons learnt and use them systematically for the relevant regional support schemes under the 2014-2020 ESIF. 
Zaradi tega ni bilo mogoče opredeliti pridobljenih izkušenj in jih sistematično uporabljati za zadevni shemi regionalne podpore v okviru skladov ESI za obdobje 2014–2020.
The Commission did not carry out specific audits or evaluations regarding the durability of the ERDF-financed investments. 
Komisija ni opravila specifičnih revizij ali vrednotenj glede trajnosti naložb, financiranih iz ESRR.
It had to rely mainly on the data reported in the MAs’ annual implementation reports for information on durability and on OP implementation in general. 
Za pridobitev informacij v zvezi s trajnostjo in izvajanjem operativnega programa na splošno se je morala opirati predvsem na podatke, ki so jih sporočali organi upravljanja v letnih poročilih o izvajanju.
However, most of the data primarily concerned performance in terms of the absorption of the funds. 
Vendar pa se je večina podatkov nanašala predvsem na smotrnost v smislu črpanja sredstev.