natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As a result, during the first call for project proposals in 2007, the Polish managing authority applied the ‘first-come, first-served’ principle. 
Med prvim razpisom za zbiranje predlogov za projekte leta 2007 je zato poljski organ upravljanja uporabil načelo „kdor prej pride, prej melje“.
Eligible applications were received in order of their submission until the budget ceiling for the region concerned was reached. 
Upravičene vloge so bile sprejete v vrstnem redu, po katerem so bile predložene, dokler ni bila dosežena proračunska zgornja meja za posamezno regijo.
This led in some regional offices to queues of applicants waiting in front of the administrative office. 
Zato so v nekaterih regionalnih uradih vlagatelji čakali v vrsti pred upravnim uradom.
During the second call for projects in 2009, the selection of projects was carried out on a random basis. 
Med drugim razpisom za projekte leta 2009 so bili projekti izbrani naključno.
All admissible applications meeting the basic eligibility criteria were selected in random order until the available budget for the region was exhausted. 
Izmed vseh sprejemljivih vlog, ki so izpolnjevale osnovna merila za upravičenost, so bile vloge naključno izbrane, dokler ni bil porabljen proračun, ki je bil na voljo za regijo.
With these selection methods there is no mechanism to target the funding to projects that address identified structural or territorial needs. 
Pri takšnih izbirnih metodah ni mehanizma za usmerjanje sredstev v projekte, ki obravnavajo ugotovljene strukturne in ozemeljske potrebe.
From October 2010 onwards the Polish authorities introduced selection criteria for investment projects. Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
Poljske oblasti so oktobra 2010 uvedle izbirna merila za naložbene projekte. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
OVERVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT METHODS OF TARGETING USED BY THE MEMBER STATES (REGIONS) AUDITED 32. 
PREGLED RAZLIČNIH METOD USMERJANJA, KI SO JIH UPORABLJALE REVIDIRANE DRŽAVE ČLANICE (REGIJE) 32.
An overview of the different methods of targeting implemented across the 10 Member States is given in Table 1, together with the Court’s analysis of the degree of targeting achieved through RDP provisions, the national legislation and implementing procedures. 
V tabeli 1 so prikazani pregled različnih metod usmerjanja, ki se uporabljajo v desetih državah članicah, ter analiza usmerjenosti, dosežene z določbami iz PRP, ki jo je opravilo Sodišče, nacionalna zakonodaja in izvedbeni postopki.
TABLE 1 THE DIFFERENT METHODS AND DEGREES OF TARGETING IN THE 10 MEMBER STATES (REGIONS) AUDITED 18 Member State Restrictive eligibility criteria linked to priorities developed and/or incentives given Selection criteria defined to target aid Selection criteria effectively applied Overall assessment of targeting Belgium (Wallonia) √ X X weak Germany (Baden-Württemberg) √ √ X limited Spain (Catalonia) √ √ X limited France (mainland) √ √ X limited Italy (Veneto) √ √ √ strong Luxembourg limited X X weak Hungary √ √ X limited Poland X X X weak Portugal (mainland) √ √ X limited Romania √ √ √ strong Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
TABELA 1 RAZLIČNE METODE IN INTENZIVNOSTI USMERJANJA V DESETIH REVIDIRANIH DRŽAVAH ČLANICAH (REGIJAH) 18 Država članica Omejevalna merila za upravičenost, povezana z opredeljenimi prednostnimi nalogami in/ali danimi spodbudami Izbirna merila so opredeljena tako, da usmerjajo pomoč Izbirna merila se uspešno uporabljajo Splošna ocena usmerjanja Belgija (Valonija) √ X X slabo Nemčija (Baden‐Württemberg) √ √ X omejeno Španija (Katalonija) √ √ X omejeno Francija (celinska) √ √ X omejeno Italja (Benečija) √ √ √ dobro Luksemburg omejeno X X slabo Madžarska √ √ X omejeno Poljska X X X slabo Portugalska (celinska) √ √ X omejeno Romunija √ √ √ dobro Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
19 THE COMMISSION APPROVED SOME RDPS THAT DID NOT TARGET THE AID TO IDENTIFIED NEEDS AND PRIORITIES 33. 
19 KOMISIJA JE ODOBRILA NEKAJ PROGRAMOV RAZVOJA PODEŽELJA, KI POMOČI NISO USMERJALI V UGOTOVLJENE POTREBE IN PREDNOSTNE NALOGE 33.
The lack of effective targeting observed in paragraphs 29 to 32 above should not arise as the RDPs established by Member States are submitted to the Commission for approval and the legislation requires that they contain sufficient evidence that the investment measures are targeted on clearly defined objectives reflecting identified structural and territorial needs and structural disadvantages13. The current legislation does not oblige Member States to disclose in the RDP the selection criteria to be used. 
Usmerjanje iz odstavkov od 29 do 32 ne bi smelo biti neuspešno, saj se PRP, ki jih pripravijo države članice, predložijo Komisiji v odobritev, zakonodaja pa zahteva, da vsebujejo zadostne dokaze, da so naložbeni ukrepi usmerjeni v jasno opredeljene cilje, ki odražajo ugotovljene strukturne in ozemeljske potrebe ter strukturne slabosti.13 V skladu s sedanjo zakonodajo državam članicam v PRP ni treba razkriti izbirnih meril, ki jih bodo uporabljale.
These may be adopted by the Member State after the Commission has approved the RDP. 
Države članice jih lahko sprejmejo, potem ko je Komisija že odobrila PRP.
However, including in the RDP the key elements the Member State intends to use for the selection of investment projects is essential for the purpose of identifying if and to what extent the required targeting will be achieved. 
Vendar je vključevanje ključnih elementov, ki jih namerava država članica uporabiti za izbiro naložbenih projektov, bistveno za ugotavljanje, ali in koliko bo zahtevana usmerjenost dosežena.
Two of the 10 RDPs examined contained clear evidence of good targeting of measure 121 (Italy (Veneto) and Hungary). 
Dva od desetih PRP sta vsebovala jasne dokaze dobrega usmerjanja ukrepa 121 (Italija – Benečija in Madžarska).
Six other RDPs contained little evidence of such targeting (Belgium (Wallonia), Germany (Baden-Württemberg), Spain (Catalonia), France, Romania14 and Portugal). Two RDPs (Luxembourg and Poland) did not contain sufficient evidence that measure 121 was targeted. 
V šestih drugih PRP je bilo malo dokazov o takšni usmerjenosti (Belgija – Valonija, Nemčija – Baden-Würt-temberg, Španija – Katalonija, Francija, Romunija14, Portugalska), v dveh PRP (Luksemburg in Poljska) pa ni bilo zadostnih dokazov o usmerjenosti ukrepa 121.
All 10 of the RDPs were, however, approved by the Commission. 
Vendar je Komisija odobrila vseh deset PRP.
The Commission’s services questioned the lack of targeting of measure 121 during their assessment of the proposed Polish RDP in July 2007. 
Službe Komisije so med oceno predlaganega poljskega PRP julija 2007 izrazile pomisleke glede slabe usmerjenosti ukrepa 121.
In this context, the Commission raised the issue of the proposed ‘first-come, first-served’ approach. 
Ob tem je Komisija izrazila pomislek glede primernosti predlaganega pristopa „kdor prej pride, prej melje“.
The Polish RDP was not subsequently modified yet the Commission approved it in September 2007 despite the insufficient targeting. 
Poljski PRP potem ni bil spremenjen, Komisija pa ga je septembra 2007 kljub nezadostni usmerjenosti odobrila.
Luxembourg’s RDP sets out eligibility criteria and differentiated aid rates but it fails to specify the way in which the aid will be targeted to the objectives it has defined to address its particular needs. 
V luksemburškem PRP so bila določena merila za upravičenost in različne stopnje pomoči, ne pa tudi način usmerjanja pomoči v cilje, opredeljene v zvezi s posebnimi potrebami.
The Commission has reminded the Luxembourg authorities several times of their obligation to set selection criteria. 
Komisija je luksemburške oblasti večkrat opomnila, da morajo določiti izbirna merila.
13 Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006. 
13 Člen 43 Uredbe (ES) št. 1974/2006.
14 Although the Romanian RDP contained little evidence of good targeting at the time of its approval by the Commission, investments under measure 121 were strongly targeted in practice due to the implementation of restrictive eligibility criteria and the effective application of relevant selection criteria (see Table 1). Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
14 Čeprav je romunski PRP vseboval malo dokazov o dobrem usmerjanju, ko ga je Komisija odobrila, so bile naložbe v okviru ukrepa 121 v praksi dobro usmerjene zaradi izvajanja omejevalnih meril za upravičenost in uspešne uporabe ustreznih izbirnih meril (glej tabelo 1). Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
The cases of Luxembourg and Poland underline the need for the Commission to ensure a sufficient level of targeting evidenced within the RDP submitted for its approval. 
Luksemburški in poljski primer potrjujeta potrebo po tem, da Komisija zagotovi, da je v PRP, ki jih prejme v odobritev, določena zadostna raven usmerjenosti.
Once an RDP is approved by the Commission and EAFRD funds are made available to the Member State, it is more difficult for the Commission to retroactively ensure targeting. 
Ko Komisija odobri PRP in ko so državi članici dana na voljo sredstva EKSRP, Komisija težje retroaktivno zagotavlja usmerjanje.
THE DESCRIPTION OF TARGETING ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE RDP DOES NOT ALWAYS CORRESPOND TO THE TARGETING APPLIED IN PRACTICE 38. 
OPIS ELEMENTOV USMERJANJA IZ PROGRAMA RAZVOJA PODEŽELJA NE USTREZA VEDNO USMERJANJU, KI SE UPORABLJA V PRAKSI 38.
The Court found that the selection process implemented and the targeting achieved in practice sometimes differed significantly from the description in the RDP, the chief document on which the Commission bases its decision to approve the overall spending programme. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da se izvajani izbirni postopek in dosežena usmerjenost v praksi včasih znatno razlikujeta od opisa v PRP, ki je glavni dokument, na podlagi katerega Komisija odobri celoten program porabe.
Some Member States described detailed selection systems in their RDP but in practice financed all eligible projects rendering their selection procedures meaningless (France, Hungary). 
Nekatere države članice so v svojih PRP opisale podrobne izbirne sisteme, vendar so v praksi financirale vse upravičene projekte, zaradi česar so njihovi izbirni postopki izgubili pomen (Francija, Madžarska).
Conversely, other Member States, notably Portugal, developed more detailed targeting systems than were described in the RDP approved by the Commission. 
Nasprotno so druge države članice, zlasti Portugalska, razvile bolj podrobne sisteme usmerjanja, kot so jih opisale v PRP, ki jih je odobrila Komisija.
THE CMEF DOES NOT ALLOW THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE MEASURE ADDRESSES ALL THE EU PRIORITIES TO BE MONITORED 39. 
OKVIR SKUPNEGA SPREMLJANJA IN VREDNOTENJA NE OMOGOČA SPREMLJANJA TEGA, ALI UKREP OBRAVNAVA VSE PREDNOSTNE NALOGE EU 39.
The CMEF provides information on progress in programme implementation with respect to indicators of financial inputs, outputs and results. 
Okvir skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja zagotavlja podatke o napredku pri izvajanju programa glede na kazalnike finančnih vložkov, izložkov in rezultatov.
It should, therefore, help identify the results of the targeting of the measure. 
Zato bi moral pomagati ugotoviti rezultate usmerjanja ukrepa.
20 Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
20 Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
The CMEF indicators defined for measure 121 (see Table 2) are not relevant for monitoring the extent to which certain EU priorities, or the specific actions of the measure, such as quality, on/off-farm diversification and improving the environmental, occupational safety, hygiene and animal welfare status of agricultural holdings, are addressed by the projects financed as no such data is collected. 
Kazalniki okvira skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja, opredeljeni za ukrep 121 (glej tabelo 2), niso ustrezni za spremljanje tega, koliko financirani projekti obravnavajo posamezne prednostne naloge EU ali specifične dejavnosti ukrepa, kot so kakovost, diverzifikacija kmetijskih in nekmetijskih dejavnosti ter izboljšanje varovanja okolja in varnosti pri delu ter raven higiene in dobrega počutja živali na kmetijskih gospodarstvih, saj se ti podatki ne zbirajo.
The ‘New products and/or techniques’ result indicator is important for an investment measure the main objective of which is the modernisation of holdings. 
Kazalnik rezultatov za nove proizvode in/ali tehnike je pomemben za naložbene ukrepe, katerih glavni cilj je posodabljanje gospodarstev.
The audit revealed that it was difficult for Member States to collect data that corresponds to the CMEF definition of this specific indi-cator15. Some Member States decided not to report on it at all (France) or to measure it only partially (Belgium (Wallonia), which refers only to ‘new products’). 
Pri reviziji se je pokazalo, da so države članice težko zbirale podatke, ki ustrezajo opredelitvi okvira skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja za ta specifičen kazalnik.15 Nekatere države članice so se odločile, da o njem sploh ne bodo poročale (Francija) ali da ga bodo merile samo delno (Belgija (Valo-nija)), ki obravnava samo nove proizvode).
Further, the mid-term evaluation reports identified, for five of the 10 Member States audited, the difficulty of defining ‘new techniques’ (Belgium (Wallonia), Germany (Baden-Württemberg), France, Luxembourg, Romania). 
Poleg tega so bile v poročilih o vmesni oceni za pet od desetih revidiranih držav članic ugotovljene težave pri opredeljevanju novih tehnik (Belgija (Valonija), Nemčija (Baden-Württemberg), Francija, Luksemburg, Romunija).
Other Member States applied a definition the scope of which is broader than that of the definition proposed by the CMEF. 
Druge države članice so uporabljale opredelitev, katere obseg je širši od obsega opredelitve, ki jo predlaga okvir skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja.
In Romania, the definition includes any product or technique that is new to the holding. 
V Romuniji je opredelitev vključevala vse proizvode in tehnike, ki so nove za neko gospodarstvo.
The definition thus includes almost all investment projects supported through the measure (98 % of finalised investments16). 
Opredelitev je tako vključevala skoraj vse naložbene projekte, ki so dobili podporo v okviru tega ukrepa (98 % končanih naložb16).
TABLE 2 CMEF INDICATORS FOR MEASURE 121 15 CMEF handbook: ‘Changes in land use or in agricultural practices that lead to a change in the composition of the basic agricultural products’. 
15 Priročnik o okviru skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja: „Spremembe v rabi zemljišča ali kmetijskih praksah, ki privedejo do spremembe sestave osnovnih kmetijskih proizvodov“.
(The Handbook on Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework,Guidance document, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, September 2006.) 
[Napotki priročnika za okvir skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja, Generalni direktorat za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja, september 2006.]
16 Romania, Annual Progress Report 2009. 
16 Romunija, letno poročilo o napredku za leto 2009.
21 Type of indicator Indicator Baseline Labour productivity in agriculture Gross fixed capital formation in agriculture Input Amount of public expenditure realised (total versus EAFRD) Output1 Number of farm holdings that received investment support (division according to sex, legal status, age category, type of investments — FADN2 — and type of agricultural branch) Total volume of investment (division according to the type of investment — FADN — and type of agricultural branch) Result Number of holdings introducing new products and/or techniques (division according to type of redeployment of production) Increase in gross value added in supported holdings Impact Economic growth Labour productivity 1 According to the CMEF, the number of applications approved will also be provided. 
21 TABELA 2 KAZALNIKI OKVIRA SKUPNEGA SPREMLJANJA IN VREDNOTENJA ZA UKREP 121 Vrsta kazalnika Kazalnik Osnova Produktivnost dela v kmetijstvu Bruto investicije v osnovna sredstva v kmetijstvu Vložek Znesek realiziranih javnih odhodkov (skupna vsota v primerjavi z EKSRP) Izložek1 Število kmetijskih gospodarstev, ki so prejela podporo za naložbe (razdelitev po spolu, pravnem statusu, starostni kategoriji, vrsti naložbe – FADN2 – in kmetijski panogi) Skupna vrednost naložb (razdelitev po vrsti naložbe – FADN – in kmetijski panogi) Rezultat Število gospodarstev, ki so uvedla nove proizvode in/ali tehnike (razdelitev po vrsti preusmeritve proizvodnje) Povečanje bruto dodane vrednosti v gospodarstvih, ki so prejela podporo Učinek Gospodarska rast Produktivnost dela 1 V skladu z okvirom skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja bo zagotovljen tudi podatek o številu odobrenih vlog. 2 Mreža računovodskih podatkov s kmetijskih gospodarstev. Posebno poročilo št.
According to a guidance document issued by the Commission, the ‘Increase in gross value added (GVA)’ result indicator is intended to measure the improvement of economic performance at the level of holdings supported17. Two of the seven Member States visited did not report on the increase in GVA in the period 2007–10 due to difficulties in collecting the necessary data (Luxembourg and France). 
V skladu s smernicami Komisije je kazalnik rezultatov za povečanje bruto dodane vrednosti namenjen za merjenje izboljšanja gospodarske uspešnosti na ravni gospodarstev, ki so prejela podporo.17 Dve od sedmih obiskanih držav članic zaradi težav pri zbiranju potrebnih podatkov (Luksemburg in Francija) nista poročali o povečanju bruto dodane vrednosti v obdobju 2007–2010.
For the other Member States visited the audit found widely varying definitions and methods for collecting the data. 
Za druge obiskane države članice je bilo pri reviziji ugotovljeno, da imajo zelo različne opredelitve in metode za zbiranje podatkov.
The mid-term evaluation report for Spain (Catalonia) pointed out that the reliability of the ‘increase in GVA’ indicator is very low, as the necessary accounting information was available only for a very limited sample of beneficiary holdings. 
V poročilu o vmesni oceni za Španijo (Katalonija) je poudarjeno, da je zanesljivost kazalnika za povečanje bruto dodane vrednosti zelo majhna, ker so bili potrebni računovodski podatki na voljo samo za zelo majhen vzorec upravičenih gospodarstev.
A consequence of the low reliability and lack of common definitions is that the data that is collected is not comparable between Member States and cannot meaningfully be aggregated at EU level. 
Posledica majhne zanesljivosti in pomanjkanja skupnih opredelitev je, da zbranih podatkov ni mogoče primerjati med različnimi državami članicami in da jih ni mogoče smiselno agregirati na ravni EU.
With its 2007 ‘Health Check’ proposal18, the Commission identified several ‘new challenges’ for European agriculture, in the areas of climate change, renewable energy, water management and biodiversity. 
Komisija je s svojim predlogom sistematskega pregleda18 leta 2007 opredelila več novih izzivov za evropsko kmetijstvo na področju podnebnih sprememb, obnovljivih virov energije, gospodarjenja z vodnimi viri in biotske raznovrstnosti.
The Council added the restructuring of the dairy sector as a further challenge. 
Svet je kot dodaten izziv dodal prestrukturiranje sektorja mleka.
The Council made an additional 4,95 billion euro available19 through the ‘Health Check’ and the EERP and underlined the importance of targeting these funds by ‘further strengthening’20 operations related to the EU’s new challenges in the Member States’ RDPs. 
S sistematskim pregledom in evropskim načrtom za oživitev gospodarstva je zagotovil dodatnih 4,95 milijarde EUR19 in poudaril pomen usmerjanja teh sredstev z dodatno krepitvijo dejavnosti20, povezanih z novimi izzivi EU v PRP držav članic.
Member States which intended to address the new challenges within their RDPs and thus activate the supplementary funding available through the ‘Health Check’ and EERP from January 2010 onwards had to submit revised RDPs to the Commission for its approval by June 2009. 
Države članice, ki so v svojih PRP nameravale obravnavati nove izzive in s tem aktivirati dodatna sredstva, ki so bila na voljo s sistematskim pregledom in evropskim načrtom za oživitev gospodarstva od januarja 2010 naprej, so morale do junija 2009 Komisiji v odobritev predložiti revidirane PRP.
Following this, an estimated additional 630 million euro was programmed for measure 121. 
Na podlagi tega je bilo za ukrep 121 po ocenah namenjenih dodatnih 630 milijonov EUR.
The Court’s services reviewed the use of measure 121 to address the new challenges by assessing the revised ‘Health Check’ RDPs approved by the Commission and the national implementation procedures in the 10 Member States reviewed for this audit. 
Službe Sodišča so pregledale uporabo ukrepa 121 za obravnavo novih izzivov tako, da so ocenile PRP, revidirane po sistematskem pregledu, ki jih je odobrila Komisija, in nacionalne izvedbene postopke v desetih državah članicah, pregledanih pri tej reviziji.
17 ‘Working paper on the CMEF gross value added indicators’, European Commission, March 2010. 
17 Working paper on the CMEF gross value added indicators (delovni dokument o kazalnikih bruto dodane vrednosti okvira skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja), Evropska komisija, marec 2010.
18 COM(2007) 722 final of 20 November 2007. 
18 COM(2007) 722 konč. z dne 20. novembra 2007.
19 Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 of 19 January 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the EAFRD (OJ L 30, 31.1.2009, p. 
74/2009 z dne 19. januarja 2009 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz EKSRP (UL L 30, 31.1.2009, str.
20 Recital 6 of Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 states: ‘It is important that operations related to these Community priorities are further strengthened in the rural development programmes approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.’ 
20 V uvodni izjavi št. 6 Uredbe (ES) št. 74/2009 je navedeno: „Dejavnosti, povezane s temi prednostnimi nalogami Skupnosti, je treba v programih razvoja podeželja, odobrenih v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št.
22 Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
1698/2005, dodatno okrepiti“. 22 Posebno poročilo št.
23 SOME MEMBER STATES DID NOT USE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO ‘FURTHER STRENGTHEN’ MEASURE 121 46. 
23 NEKATERE DRŽAVE ČLANICE NISO UPORABILE DODATNIH SREDSTEV, DA BI ŠE OKREPILE UKREP 121 46.
Member States may make use of the additional funding to increase aid rates for relevant projects, for example, or by introducing specific sub-measures to address the new challenges. 
Države članice dodatna sredstva lahko uporabijo na primer za zvišanje stopenj pomoči za ustrezne projekte ali z uvedbo posebnih podmeril za obravnavo novih izzivov.
They may also revise their procedures and criteria in order to favour, during the selection process, investments addressing the new challenges. 
Svoje postopke in merila lahko med procesom izbire tudi spremenijo, da dajo prednost naložbam, ki obravnavajo nove izzive.
For seven of the 10 Member States covered by the audit21, the adoption of the ‘Health Check’ and the EERP increased the budget allocated to measure 121. 
Za sedem od desetih držav članic, vključenih v revizijo,21 je sprejetje sistematskega pregleda in evropskega načrta za oživitev gospodarstva povečalo proračun za ukrep 121.
In all of these cases, the RDPs had already addressed objectives linked to the new priorities before the ‘Health Check’. 
V vseh teh primerih so bili v PRP cilji, povezani z novimi prednostnimi nalogami, obravnavani že pred sistematskim pregledom.
The seven Member States that increased the budget for measure 121 responded to the new priorities in different ways. 
Sedem držav članic, ki so povečale proračun za ukrep 121, se je različno odzvalo na nove prednostne naloge.