natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
28 For 2014-2020, the rules on assurance and closure have been further improved and aligned between the two spending areas. 
28 Pravila za zagotovilo in zaključevanje so bila za obdobje 2014–2020 dodatno izboljšana in usklajena med obema področjema porabe.
Notwithstanding efforts to streamline procedures through the common provisions regulation15, a few differences remain in the closure arrangements for the two policy areas. 
Ne glede na prizadevanja za racionalizacijo postopkov z uredbo o skupnih določbah15 med ureditvami za zaključevanje na obeh področjih še vedno ostaja nekaj razlik.
The main differences are listed in Table 2. 
Glavne so prikazane v tabeli 2.
12 Article 84 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
12 Člen 84 Uredbe (EU) št. 1303/2013.
13 Articles 139(5) and 145(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
13 Člena 139(5) in 145(7) Uredbe (EU) št.
14 Article 141 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
14 Člen 141 Uredbe (EU) št.
15 Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
1303/2013. 15 Uredba (EU) št.
Observations 24 Differences in closure arrangements in the 2014-2020 period between cohesion and rural development The tasks and responsibilities of managing authorities, certifying authorities and audit authorities are described in Annex II. 
Opažanja 24 Razlike med ureditvami za zaključevanje za obdobje 2014–2020 na področjih kohezije in razvoja podeželja Naloge in odgovornosti organov upravlja­ nja, organov za potrjevanje in revizijskih organov so opisane v Prilogi II.
In cohesion the initial pre-financing of the programmes is supplemented by annual pre-financing. 
Na področju kohezije je začetno predfinanciranje programov dopolnje­ no z letnim predfinanciranjem.
10 % of interim payments is systematically withheld to protect the EU budget from the effects of irregular expenditure. 
10 % vmesnih plačil se sistematično zadrži, da se proračun EU zavaruje pred učinki nepravilnih odhodkov.
This amount is to be released upon acceptance of the annual accounts. 
Ta znesek se sprosti ob sprejetju letnih obračunov.
The legislation4 specifically states that issues of legality and regularity should not be taken into account for the annual acceptance of accounts. 
V zakonodaji4 je izrecno navedeno, da se zadev, povezanih z zakonitostjo in pravilnostjo, ne bi smelo upoštevati pri letnem sprejetju obračunov.
1 Article 84 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
1 Člen 84 Uredbe (EU) št. 1303/2013.
2 Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 
2 Člen 51 Uredbe (EU) št.
3 Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 
3 Člen 52 Uredbe (EU) št.
4 Article 139(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
4 Člen 139(5) Uredbe (EU) št.
5 Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 
5 Člen 9 Uredbe (EU) št.
The tasks and responsibilities of managing authorities, paying agencies and certification bodies are described in Annex II. 
Naloge in odgovornosti organov upravljanja, plačilnih agencij in certifika­ cijskih organov so opisane v Prilogi II.
The term ‘acceptance of accounts’ from the common provisions regulation is applicable, but the specific rules for rural development maintain the terms ‘clearance of accounts’2 and ‘conformity clearance’3. 
Termin sprejetje obračuna iz uredbe o skupnih določbah se uporablja, toda v posebnih pravilih za področje razvoja podeželja sta ohranjena termina potrdi­ tev obračunov2 in potrditev skladnosti3.
In rural development only initial pre-financing is paid to the Member States, there is no annual pre-financing and no sum is withheld from the interim payments. 
Na področju razvoja podeželja se državam članicam izplača samo začetno predfinanciranje, ni letnega predfinanci­ ranja in noben znesek vmesnih plačil se ne zadrži.
However, the cumulative payments for a programme are capped at 95 % and the remaining 5 % is released only at the payment of the final balance. 
Vendar so kumulativna plačila za program omejena na 95 %, preostalih 5 % pa se sprosti šele ob plačilu končne­ ga zneska.
The specific rules on rural development expand annual reporting by the certification bodies on legality and regularity 5. 
Posebna pravila za področje razvoja podeželja določajo, da mora letno poro­ čanje certifikacijskih organov zajemati tudi zakonitost in pravilnost5.
Although their tasks are broadly similar, the Member State authorities have different names and different roles in the respective policy areas. 
Naloge organov držav članic na obeh področjih so na splošno podobne, vendar imajo organi na teh področjih različne nazive in vloge.
While in rural development only initial pre-financing is paid to the Member States, this is supplemented with annual pre-financing in cohesion. 
Medtem ko se na področju razvoja podeželja državam članicam izplača samo začetno predfinanciranje, je to na področju kohezije dopolnjeno z letnim predfinanciranjem.
In rural development no part of the interim payment is withheld while in cohesion there is retention of 10 %. 
Na področju razvoja podeželja se ne zadrži noben del vmesne­ ga plačila, na področju kohezije pa 10 %.
For rural development, on the other hand, payments for a programme are capped at 95 % implementation, which is not the case for cohesion. 
Vendar so na področju razvoja podeželja plačila za program omejena na 95 %, kar pa ne velja za kohezijo.
It is not clear for either area to what extent the Commission in practice will consider the legality and regularity for the annual acceptance. 
Za nobeno področje ni jasno, koliko bo Komisija pri letnem sprejetju upoštevala zakonitost in pravilnost.
Topic Terminology and roles of the Member State authorities Cohesion Rural development Differences Legality and regularity Table 2 
Tema Terminologija in vloge organov držav članic Kohezija Razvoj podeželja Razlike Zakonitost in pravilnost Tabela 2
Observations 25 Topic Cohesion Rural development Differences Accounting year, financial year and the last annual accounts Deadlines Closure documents A new accounting year, 1 July-30 June6, has been introduced. 
Opažanja 25 Tema Kohezija Razvoj podeželja Razlike Obračunsko leto, proračunsko leto in obračuni za zadnje leto Roki Dokumenti o zaključku Uvedeno je bilo novo obračunsko leto, ki traja od 1. julija do 30. junija6.
The last annual accounts have to cover expenditure up to the final eligibility date (31 December 2023)8; they will formally cover the accounting year from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024. 
Obračuni za zadnje leto morajo zajeti od­ hodke do končnega datuma upravičenosti (31. december 2023)8; formalno bodo zajeli obračunsko leto od 1. julija 2023 do 30. junija 2024.
The deadline for submission of the final documents for closure is 15 February 2025, 13.5 months after the final eligibility date of 31 December 2023. 
Rok za predložitev končnih dokumentov za zaključevanje je 15. februar 2025, torej 13,5 meseca po končnem datumu upravi­ čenosti, ki je 31. december 2023.
A final implementation report has to be submitted9. 
Predložiti je treba končno poročilo o izvajanju9.
6 Article 2(29) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
6 Člen 2(29) Uredbe (EU) št.
7 Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 
7 Člen 39 Uredbe (EU) št.
8 Article 65(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
8 Člen 65(2) Uredbe (EU) št.
9 Article 141 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
9 Člen 141 Uredbe (EU) št.
Source: ECA. 29 The accounting year remains 16 October-15 October7 as for the 2007-2013 period. 
Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče. 29 Obračunsko leto še naprej traja od 16. oktobra do 15. oktobra7, enako kot je bilo za obdobje 2007–2013.
While the final eligibility date is the same (31 December 2023), the last annual accounts will cover 15 October 2022 to 31 December 2023. 
Končni datum upravičenosti je sicer enak (31. december 2023), toda obračuni za zadnje leto bodo zajemali obdobje od 15. oktobra 2022 do 31. decembra 2023.
The deadline for submission of the final documents for closure is 30 June 2024, 6 months after the final eligibility date of 31 December 2023. 
Rok za predložitev končnih dokumentov za zaključevanje je 30. junij 2024, torej šest mesecev po končnem datumu upra­ vičenosti, ki je 31. december 2023.
No additional documents are required for closure. 
Za zaključevanje se ne zahteva dodatnih dokumentov.
The accounting years cover different periods. 
Obračunski leti zajemata različni obdobji.
The period covered by the last annual accounts is different as well. 
Tudi obdobja, ki jih zajemajo obračuni za zadnje leto, se razlikujejo.
There are different deadlines for submission of the final documents for closure. 
Roka za predložitev končnih dokumentov za zaključevanje se razlikujeta.
Unlike rural development, a final implementation report has to be submitted for cohesion. 
Za razliko od razvoja podeželja je treba na področju kohezije predložiti končno poročilo o izvajanju.
16 Article 141 of Regulation (EC) No 1303/2013. 
16 Člen 141 Uredbe (ES) št. 1303/2013.
In essence, these differences mean that the closure will start later for cohesion than for rural development, and that the Member States will only have to submit a final implementation report to the Commission for programmes in the cohesion area16. 
Te razlike predvsem pomenijo, da se bo zaključevanje na področju kohezije začelo pozneje kot na področju razvoja podeželja ter da bodo morale države članice Komisiji predložiti končno poročilo o izvajanju samo za programe na področju kohezije16.
The closure process could also benefit from further alignment between the two policy areas. 
Procesu zaključevanja bi koristila tudi dodatna uskladitev med področjema.
Observations 26 Legality and regularity is taken into account for the closure of 2007-2013 programmes in cohesion, but is treated separately from closure for rural development The understanding and expected consequences of 2007-2013 closure differ somewhat The Member States interpret the purpose of closure more broadly than its definition in the legal framework 30 The purpose of programme closure should be clearly stated in the regulations and communicated so as to foster a common understanding by the Commission and the Member States. 
Opažanja 26 Zakonitost in pravilnost sta bili na področju kohezije upoštevani pri zaključevanju programov iz obdobja 2007– 2013, na področju razvoja podeželja pa sta bili obravnavani ločeno od zaključevanja Obstajajo razlike v razumevanju in pričakovanih posledicah zaključevanja za obdobje 2007–2013 Države članice si namen zaključevanja razlagajo širše, kot je zaključevanje opredeljeno v pravnem okviru 30 Namen zaključevanja programov bi bilo treba jasno navesti v uredbah in ga sporočati, da bi ga Komisija in države članice razumele enako.
31 Most respondents to our survey of Member State authorities replied that the purpose of closure was clear. 
31 V naši anketi, poslani organom držav članic, je večina anketirancev odgovorila, da je namen zaključevanja jasen.
However, their perception of the purpose of closure, in both policy areas, was broader than the definition given in the regulations (i.e. the payment of the final balance17). 
Vendar pa so namen zaključevanja na obeh področjih razumeli širše od opredelitve iz uredb (npr. plačilo končnega zneska17).
A significant proportion of respondents also identified other purposes of closure, such as ‘final verification that reimbursed expenditure is legal and regular’, ‘legal certainty for the Member State that declared expenditure for the period is accepted by the European Commission’ and ‘evaluation whether objectives were achieved’. 
Znaten delež anketirancev je navedel tudi druge namene zaključevanja, kot so „končno preverjanje, da so povrnjeni odhodki zakoniti in pravilni”, „pravna varnost za države članice o tem, da je Evropska komisija sprejela prijavljene odhodke za obdobje”, ter „ovrednotenje doseganja ciljev”.
32 In the cohesion area this broader view was shared by the Commission. 
32 Na področju kohezije je to širše razumevanje delila tudi Komisija.
According to DG REGIO and DG EMPL the payment of the final balance follows on from an examination of the programme achievements set out in the final implementation report, and is dependent on certification by the audit authority that the expenditure declared to the Commission is legal and regular. 17 Article 89(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 for cohesion and Article 37 of Regulation (EU) 1306/2013 for rural development. 
Po navedbah GD REGIO in GD EMPL plačilo končnega zneska sledi preučitvi dosežkov programa, kot so predstavljeni v končnem poročilu o izvajanju, in je odvisno od potrditve revizijskega organa, da so Komisiji prijavljeni odhodki zakoniti in pravilni. 17 Člen 89(5) Uredbe (ES) št. 1083/2006 za področje kohezije in člen 37 Uredbe (EU) št.
Observations 27 33 However, the perception that the closure of a cohesion programme offers legal certainty that the expenditure is accepted by the Commission is not supported by the regulations, as financial corrections are possible even after closure. 
Opažanja 27 33 Mišljenje, da zaključek kohezijskega programa daje pravno varnost v zvezi s tem, da je Komisija sprejela odhodke, pa nima podlage v uredbah, saj so finančni popravki mogoči tudi po zaključku.
In practice subsequent financial corrections need rarely to be applied. 
Vendar je v praksi naknadne finančne popravke treba uporabiti le redkokdaj.
In rural development the expectation gap is rather greater, as post-closure conformity audits (potentially leading to financial corrections) are frequent and ‘real’ closure is not achieved until all audits have been finalised and settled through the Commission’s financial correction decisions. 
Na področju razvoja podeželja je razkorak med pričakovanji precej večji, saj so revizije potrditve skladnosti po zaključku (ki lahko potencialno privedejo do finančnih popravkov) pogoste in je dejanski zaključek dosežen šele, ko so bile vse revizije končane in razrešene z odločitvami Komisije o finančnih popravkih.
In cohesion, a cumulative residual risk rate is calculated during programme implementation and at closure to assess the legality and regularity of expenditure; this is not done for rural development 34 In both areas, the Commission has established a framework for Member States to provide assurance of the legality and regularity of declared expenditure throughout the programme period. 
Na področju kohezije se stopnja kumulativnega preostalega tveganja izračuna med izvajanjem programa in pri zaključku, da se ocenita zakonitost in pravilnost odhodkov, na področju razvoja podeželja pa se to ne počne 34 Komisija je na obeh področjih za države članice vzpostavila okvir za dajanje zagotovila o zakonitosti in pravilnosti prijavljenih odhodkov v celotnem programskem obdobju.
At the end of the period, account being taken of any financial corrections, the expenditure should be legal and regular for the programme as a whole. 
Na koncu obdobja, ko so upoštevani vsi finančni popravki, bi morali biti odhodki za program kot celoto zakoniti in pravilni.
Calculation of a residual risk rate for the entire period would indicate the error remaining after allowing for all financial corrections and permit an assessment as to whether the level of irregular expenditure is below the Commission’s materiality threshold currently set at 2 % in both policy areas. 
Izračun stopnje preostalega tveganja za celotno obdobje bi moral pokazati napako, ki je preostala po vseh finančnih popravkih, in omogočiti oceno tega, ali je raven nepravilnih odhodkov pod pragom pomembnosti, ki ga uporablja Komisija in je zdaj za obe področji določen na 2 %.
The calculation and analysis of residual risk rate at programme level would also make it possible to identify the causes of the remaining error and allow further corrective measures to bring irregular expenditure down to an acceptable level. 
Izračun in analiza stopnje preostalega tveganja na ravni programa bi omogočila tudi, da se ugotovijo vzroki preostale napake in da dodatni popravljalni ukrepi zmanjšajo nepravilne odhodke na sprejemljivo raven.
35 In cohesion, we found that a residual risk rate is calculated at closure for each programme and the entire programme period, account being taken of financial corrections. 
35 Za področje kohezije smo ugotovili, da se stopnja preostalega tveganja ob zaključku izračuna za vsak program in za celotno programsko obdobje, pri tem pa se upoštevajo finančni popravki.
DG REGIO and DG EMPL can impose additional financial corrections at closure if the verified residual risk rate for an OP is material. 
GD REGIO in GD EMPL lahko naložita dodatne finančne popravke ob zaključku, če je preverjena stopnja preostalega tveganja za operativni program pomembna.
Observations 28 36 In rural development, neither the certification bodies nor the Commission calculate a residual risk rate at programme level after the impact of all financial corrections. 
Opažanja 28 36 Na področju razvoja podeželja niti certifikacijski organi niti Komisija ne izračunajo, kakšna je stopnja preostalega tveganja na ravni programa po učinku vseh finančnih popravkov.
Because no such calculation is made annually or for the whole programme period, there is no assurance at closure that the risk is below the materiality level even after corrections. 
Ker se tak izračun ne pripravi ne letno ne za celotno programsko obdobje, ob zaključevanju tudi po popravkih ni zagotovila, da je tveganje pod stopnjo pomembnosti.
DG AGRI’s 2015 annual activity report states that ‘it cannot be expected with any real certainty that a remaining financial risk below 2 % would be attainable with reasonable efforts for rural development’18. 
V letnem poročilu o dejavnostih GD AGRI za leto 2015 je navedeno, da ni mogoče z nikakršno gotovostjo pričakovati, da bi bilo na področju razvoja podeželja z razumnim prizadevanjem mogoče doseči preostalo finančno tveganje, nižje od 2 %18.
37 The DG AGRI annual activity report has details of the estimated amount at risk and the estimated corrective capacity19 for the EAFRD as a whole. 
37 V letnem poročilu o dejavnostih GD AGRI so navedene podrobnosti o ocenjenem tveganem znesku in ocenjena popravna zmogljivost19 za EKSRP kot celoto.
This gives an indication of the remaining financial risk to the EU budget when all corrective actions are taken into account. 
To kaže, kakšno je preostalo finančno tveganje za proračun EU po upoštevanju vseh popravljalnih ukrepov.
However, this exercise is limited to a single financial year, and no calculations are done at this stage at programme or paying agency level. 
Vendar pa je to omejeno na eno samo proračunsko leto, na ravni programa ali plačilne agencije pa se v tej fazi ne opravijo nobeni izračuni.
Moreover, in contrast to the way it is used in cohesion, the information is not used to ensure that the residual risk rate remains below the Commission’s materiality level. 
Poleg tega se za razliko od področja kohezije informacije ne uporabijo za zagotavljanje, da stopnja preostalega tveganja ostaja pod pragom pomembnosti, ki ga je določila Komisija.
38 In neither policy area do the regulations for the 2014-2020 period require audit authorities and certification bodies to submit an audit opinion or a report for the whole programme period, or to calculate a residual risk rate for each programme at closure. 
38 Na nobenem od dveh področij uredbe za obdobje 2014–2020 ne zahtevajo, da bi revizijski in certifikacijski organi predložili revizijsko mnenje ali poročilo za celotno programsko obdobje ali da bi izračunali stopnjo preostalega tveganja za vsak program ob zaključku.
We note, however, that annual residual error rates are reported by the audit authorities and error rates and incompliance rates by the certification bodies and are verified by the Commission. 
Vendar je Sodišče ugotovilo, da o letnih stopnjah preostalega tveganja poročajo revizijski organi, o stopnjah napake in stopnjah neskladnosti pa certifikacijski organi, preveri pa jih Komisija.
These take account of the financial corrections at Member State level. 
V podatkih so upoštevani finančni popravki na ravni držav članic.
There is no final acceptance of rural development expenditure as legal and regular at or after closure 39 The final acceptance of programme expenditure as legal and regular would have certain practical implications. 
Ne ob zaključku ne po njem ni končnega sprejetja odhodkov za razvoj podeželja kot zakonitih in pravilnih 39 Končno sprejetje programskih odhodkov kot zakonitih in pravilnih bi imelo nekatere praktične posledice.
In particular, it would provide clarity for the Member States. 
Zlasti bi zagotavljalo jasnost za države članice.
It would also provide useful information for the discharge procedure — the process through which the European Parliament, on a recommendation from the Council, grants to the Commission final approval of the way the EU budget has been implemented. 
Za-gotavljalo bi tudi koristne informacije za postopek razrešnice, proces, v katerem Evropski parlament na priporočilo Sveta podeli Komisiji končno odobritev za izvrševanje proračuna EU.
Discharge is one of the means whereby the Parliament and the Council can hold the Commission accountable for the implementation of the EU budget20. 
Razrešnica je eden od načinov, s katerim lahko Parlament in Svet od Komisije zahtevata odgovornost za izvrševanje proračuna EU20.
18 Section 3.3 of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development Annual Activity Report 2015, p. 86 (Ref. 
18 Oddelek 3.3 letnega poročila o dejavnostih Generalnega direktorata za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja za leto 2015, str.
Ares(2016)2325961 — 19/05/2016). 
86 (sklic Ares(2016)2325961 – 19.5.2016).
19 The corrective capacity is calculated as an average of the previous 3 years’ financial corrections imposed by the Commission and recoveries from beneficiaries carried out by the Member States. 
19 Popravna zmogljivost se izračuna kot povprečje finančnih popravkov, ki jih je v prejšnjih treh letih naložila Komisija, in izterjav od upravičencev, ki so jih izvedle države članice.
20 Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
20 Člen 319 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
Observations 29 40 For cohesion, we examined the process which culminates in payment of the final balance for each OP. 
Opažanja 29 40 Na področju kohezije smo preučili proces, ki se konča s plačilom končnega zneska za vsak operativni program.
Generally speaking, all unresolved issues relating to the legality and regularity of expenditure should be clarified and settled before the closure of an OP. 
Na splošno bi bilo treba vsa nerešena vprašanja v zvezi z zakonitostjo in pravilnostjo odhodkov razjasniti in razrešiti pred zaključkom operativnega programa.
Having completed its assessment, the Commission sends a closure letter to the Member State stating the amount of expenditure which is accepted as eligible for the programme. 
Ko Komisija konča svojo oceno, državi članici pošlje zaključni dopis, v katerem je naveden znesek odhodkov, ki je bil v okviru programa sprejet kot upravičen.
41 In rural development, the Commission recognises the final declaration of expenditure through the clearance of accounts procedure, under which it takes annual financial clearance and multiannual conformity clearance decisions (see paragraph 13). 
41 Na področju razvoja podeželja Komisija prizna končno izjavo o odhodkih s postopkom potrditve obračunov, v okviru katerega sprejema odločitve o letni finančni potrditvi in večletni potrditvi skladnosti (glej odstavek 13).
We examined how these decisions are taken into account for the calculation of the final balance. 
Preučili smo, kako se te odločitve upoštevajo pri izračunu končnega zneska.
Although all financial clearance decisions are taken into account for the final balance calculation, the conformity decisions are treated separately since they directly lower the available budget envelope (i.e. representing a net financial correction). 
Čeprav se pri izračunu končnega zneska upoštevajo vse odločitve o finančni potrditvi, pa se odločitve o skladnosti obravnavajo ločeno, saj neposredno znižujejo razpoložljivo proračunsko ovojnico (tj. predstavljajo neto finančni popravek).
This can occur even after the Commission has taken a formal decision to clear the last annual accounts of the programme. 
To se lahko zgodi tudi po tem, ko Komisija sprejme uradno odločitev o potrditvi obračunov za zadnje leto programa.