natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With the exception of the UK, the 13 Member States that did not include measure No 133 in their RDP had no or only a small number of product names registered as a PDO or PGI (see Graph 2). 
Razen Združenega kraljestva 13 držav članic, ki ukrepa št. 133 niso vključile v svoje programe razvoja podeželja, ni imelo ali pa je imelo le malo proizvodov registriranih kot proizvode z ZOP ali ZGO (glej diagram 2).
An obvious reason with regard to the GI scheme is that in these Member States there are no or only few producer groups marketing PDO or PGI products which can apply for co-financing under measure No 133. 
Jasen razlog za to, povezan s shemo GO, je, da v teh državah članicah ni nobenih skupin proizvajalcev, ki tržijo proizvode z ZOP ali ZGO, ki bi lahko zaprosili za sofinanciranje po ukrepu št.
27 GRAPH 5 COMMITMENTS UNDER MEASURE NO 133 100 80 60 40 20 0 Source: European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development DG. Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
27 DIAGRAM 5 PRORAČUNSKE OBVEZNOSTI V OKVIRU UKREPA ŠT. 133 100 80 60 40 20 0 Vir: Evropska Komisija, GD AGRI. Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
IT ES PL EL FR DK PT AT SI DE CY NL MT BE Amounts committed in million euro 
IT ES PL EL FR DK PT AT SI DE CY NL MT BE Zneski, za katere so bile prevzete obveznosti, v milijonih EUR
The cumulative expenditure declared (utilisation by producer groups) for all eligible quality schemes until the end of 2010 amounts to 16,2 million euro and represents 7,8 % of the total amount in the Member States’ financial plans for the programming period 2007–13. 
Kumulativni prijavljeni odhodki (poraba po skupinah proizvajalcev) za vse upravičene sheme kakovosti do konca leta 2010 znašajo 16,2 milijona EUR in pomenijo 7,8 % skupnega zneska v finančnih načrtih držav članic za programsko obdobje 2007–2013.
Based on information provided in the online survey concerning expenditure for the GI scheme in the previous programming period, the Court estimates that the total amount that will be spent for the EU GI scheme in the current programming period will be about 2 million euro (0,3 million euro on average per year). promotion programmes have had Limited impact on the awareness of the geographicaL indications scheme 48. 
Sodišče na podlagi informacij, zagotovljenih v spletni raziskavi o odhodkih za shemo GO v predhodnem programskem obdobju, ocenjuje, da bo skupni znesek, porabljen za shemo geografskih označb EU v sedanjem programskem obdobju, znašal približno 2 milijona EUR (v povprečju 0,3 milijona EUR na leto). promocijsKi programi so imeli majhen vpliv na poznavanje sheme geografsKih označb 48.
Promotion programmes under Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 are usually initiated by trade or inter-trade organisations to draw up information campaigns targeting producers and processors and need to be approved by the Agriculture and Rural Development DG. 
Promocijske programe iz Uredbe (ES) št. 3/2008 običajno predlagajo panožne ali medpanožne organizacije zaradi priprave informacijskih kampanj, usmerjenih v pridelovalce in predelovalce, odobriti pa jih mora GD AGRI.
With respect to the GI scheme, they should focus on its characteristics and address the knowledge amongst target groups, including the consumers and producers. 
Pri shemi GO bi morali poudarjati njene značilnosti ter obravnavati poznavanje v ciljnih skupinah, vključno s potrošniki in proizvajalci.
Regarding the availability of data that would allow a clear conclusion to be drawn on the success (or not) of promotion programmes concerning the GI scheme and more particularly whether they increased awareness of it, the same limitation applies as for measure No 133 (see paragraph 44). 
V zvezi z razpoložljivostjo podatkov, ki bi omogočali nedvoumen zaključek o (ne)uspešnosti promocijskih programov za shemo GO in – natančneje – o tem, ali se je zaradi njih povečalo njihovo poznavanje, velja enaka omejitev kot za ukrep št. 133 (glej odstavek 44).
In the period 2005–09, the Agriculture and Rural Development DG approved 25 programmes related to PDO or PGI products with the following commitments and accumulated expenditure declared until the end of September 2010: TABLE 2: COMMITMENTS AND EXPENDITURE UNDER PROMOTION PROGRAMMES 34 Another 27 programmes related to PDO and PGI were rejected in the same period. 
V obdobju 2005–2009 je GD AGRI odobril 25 programov v zvezi s proizvodi z ZOP ali ZGO, proračunske obveznosti in prijavljeni kumulativni odhodki do konca septembra 2010 pa so znašali: TABELA 2: PRORAČUNSKE OBVEZNOSTI IN ODHODKI V OKVIRU PROMOCIJSKIH PROGRAMOV 34 V istem obdobju je bilo zavrnjenih 27 programov, povezanih z ZOP In ZGO.
35 OJL147,6.6.2008,p.3. 
35 ULL147,6.6.2008,str.3.
29 Member State Number of programmes Amounts committed in million euro Expenditure declared in million euro Italy 12 11,7 7,8 Greece 5 6,2 3,3 France 2 4,8 4,2 Spain 2 3,6 2,8 Italy-Portugal 1 1,8 1,3 Poland 1 0,8 0,7 Portugal 1 0,5 0,0 Germany 1 0,4 0,4 Total 25 29,7 20,6 51. 
29 Država članica Število programov Znesek prevzetih obveznosti v milijonih EUR Prijavljeni odhodki v milijonih EUR Italija 12 11,7 7,8 Grčija 5 6,2 3,3 Francija 2 4,8 4,2 Španija 2 3,6 2,8 Italija - Portugalska 1 1,8 1,3 Poljska 1 0,8 0,7 Portugalska 1 0,5 0,0 Nemčija 1 0,4 0,4 Skupaj 25 29,7 20,6 51.
Source: European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development DG. 
Vir: Evropska Komisija, GD AGRI.
Table 2 shows that the uptake in the period examined was relatively low with 25 programmes (five on average per year) and total expenditure amounting to some 21 million euro by the end of September 2010 (about 4 million euro EU co-financing per year on average)34. 
Tabela 2 kaže, da je bila uporaba ukrepa v obravnavanem obdobju sorazmerno nizka: 25 programov (v povprečju pet na leto) s skupnimi odhodki, ki so do konca septembra 2010 znašali pribl. 21 milijonov EUR (v povprečju pribl. 4 milijone EUR sofinanciranja na leto)34.
One of the reasons for the low number of programmes undertaken is that promotion programmes for products with low economic value usually cannot fulfil the required condition of an adequate cost/benefit ratio referred to in Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 of 5 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/200835. 
Eden od razlogov za majhno število izvajanih programov je, da promocijski programi za proizvode z nizko ekonomsko vrednostjo običajno ne morejo izpolniti pogoja iz člena 8 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 501/2008 z dne 5. junija o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
Therefore, the promotion programmes approved are mostly those presented by organisations representing products with a high economic value. Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
Zato so med odobrenimi promocijskimi programi v glavnem tisti, ki jih predlagajo organizacije, ki predstavljajo proizvode z visoko ekonomsko vrednostjo. Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
The 12 programmes concerning the EU internal market concentrated on a few Member States, in particular Germany, France and Italy. 
Dvanajst programov v zvezi z notranjim trgom EU je bilo osredotočenih na samo nekaj držav članic, zlasti Nemčijo, Francijo in Italijo.
Consequently, awareness is addressed only in a few Member States. 
Posledica tega je, da se z ozaveščenostjo ukvarjajo samo v nekaj državah članicah.
The Court noted, for the applications coming from the Member States with the highest number of PDO and PGI promotion programmes approved, a strong focus on promotion in third countries36. 
Sodišče je pri vlogah iz držav članic z največ odobrenimi promocijskimi programi za ZOP in ZGO opazilo močan poudarek na promociji v tretjih državah36.
The Agriculture and Rural Development DG in response to the question of the success of this promotion measure provided a series of evaluation studies, related to promotion in third countries37. 
GD AGRI se je na vprašanje o uspešnosti tega promocijskega ukrepa odzval z vrsto evalvacijskih študij v zvezi s promocijo v tretjih državah37.
These studies indicate low awareness in nearly all the countries covered. 
Te študije kažejo nizko ozaveščenost v skoraj vseh vključenih državah.
Some of the studies point out the very limited effect of EU campaigns in third countries (See Box 3). the commission takes Limited own actions to promote specificaLLy the geographicaL indications scheme 55. 
Nekatere od njih poudarjajo zelo omejen učinek kampanj EU v tretjih državah (glej okvir 3). Komisija sama izvaja le malo uKrepov za posebno promocijo sheme geografsKih označb 55.
The Commission frequently takes initiatives to publicise the CAP, e.g. by participating in fairs or organising seminars. 
Komisija pogosto prevzame pobudo za promocijo skupne kmetijske politike, npr. s sodelovanjem na sejmih ali organizacijo seminarjev.
The GI scheme is part of these initiatives, but there is no specific emphasis on it, nor has there been any promotion and information campaign exclusively for the scheme in the last few years38. 
Shema GO je del teh pobud, vendar se ne poudarja posebej, prav tako pa v zadnjih letih ni potekala nobena promocijska niti informacijska kampanja, namenjena samo tej shemi38.
When asked in the online survey for any additional comments on the GI scheme, five Member States stressed the need for its further promotion. 
Pet držav članic je poudarilo potrebo po nadaljnji promociji sheme GO, ko so jih v raziskavi zaprosili za dodatne pripombe o njej.
36 Seven out of 12 Italian programmes, four out of five Greek programmes. 
36 Pri sedmih od dvanajstih italijanskih programov in štirih od petih grških programov.
37 Euréval carried out a series of evaluation studies of promotion measures in third countries, namely in Switzerland and Norway, China, India and south-east Asia, Russia, Japan as well as the USA and Canada. 
37 Euréval je opravil vrsto študij za vrednotenje promocijskih ukrepov v tretjih državah, in sicer v Švici in na Norveškem, Kitajskem, v Indiji in jugovzhodni Aziji, Rusiji, na Japonskem ter v ZDA in Kanadi.
38 In the past, there was only one information and promotion programme that was initiated and financed 100 % by the Agriculture and Rural Development DG. 
38 V preteklosti je obstajal samo en informacijski in promocijski program, ki ga je v celoti začel in financiral GD AGRI.
The European Authentic Tastes (‘EAT’) programme was a 3-year programme (2004–07) with a 6 million euro budget. 
Program Pristni evropski okusi (European Authentic Tastes) je bil trileten program (2004–2007) s proračunom v višini 6 milijonov EUR.
It aimed at informing the North American and Asian public about the EU's quality schemes including the GI scheme. 
Namenjen je bil obveščanju severnoameriške in azijske javnosti o shemah kakovosti EU, vključno s shemo GO.
30 BOX 3 QUOTATIONS CONCERNING THE LIMITED EFFECT OF PROMOTION PROGRAMMES ‘... the European promotion campaigns had almost no effect on the awareness of the European designations and logos ... 
30 OKVIR 3 CITATI O OMEJENEM UČINKU PROMOCIJSKIH PROGRAMOV „... Evropske promocijske kampanje niso skoraj nič vplivale na poznavanje evropskih označb in logotipov ...
Even the professionals rarely recognise the logos when they are interviewed during the survey ... 
Celo strokovnjaki med intervjuji v raziskavi le redko prepoznajo logotipe ...
The programmes have, in their majority, failed to develop in Switzerland and Norway ... the awareness of the European designations and associated logos.’ 
Večini programov v Švici in na Norveškem ni uspelo razviti zavesti o evropskih označbah in z njimi povezanih logotipih.“ (Švica in Norveška) „Kampanje ne dosegajo zadostne kritične mase za doseganje dolgoročnih učinkov.“ (ZDA in Kanada) Posebno poročilo št.
Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 31 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 56. 
11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost? 31 ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA 56.
The GI scheme is intended to protect registered product names. 
Shema GO je namenjena zaščiti registriranih imen proizvodov.
In addition, it aims to contribute to increased competitiveness of EU agriculture in that the economic potential of PDO and PGI products can benefit the rural economy. 
Poleg tega naj bi prispevala k večji konkurenčnosti kmetijstva EU, saj bi gospodarstvo na podeželju lahko imelo korist od možnosti za gospodarski razvoj, ki jih prinašajo proizvodi z ZOP in ZGO.
The extent to which the GI scheme has such an impact largely depends on the framework designed, its management by the Commission and its implementation by Member States. 
Kolikšen vpliv ima pri tem lahko shema GO, je močno odvisno od zasnovanega okvira, upravljanja sheme, ki je v pristojnosti Komisije, in izvajanja sheme, za katerega so pristojne države članice.
The Court’s overall conclusion is that clarification is needed on a number of issues concerning the control system related to the GI scheme and that a clear strategy is lacking on the issue of awareness concerning both producers and consumers. 
Splošen zaključek Sodišča je, da je treba razjasniti številne zadeve v zvezi s sistemom nadzora sheme GO in da ni jasne strategije glede vprašanja poznavanja sheme pri proizvajalcih in potrošnikih.
More detailed conclusions and recommendations are set out below, which take into consideration the Commission proposal for a new regulation on agricultural product quality schemes (‘proposed regulation’). 
V nadaljevanju so prikazani podrobnejši zaključki in priporočila, v katerih je upoštevan predlog Komisije za novo uredbo o shemah kakovosti za kmetijske proizvode („predlagana uredba“).
The current provisions do not lay down minimum requirements to be adhered to by the competent authorities and control bodies concerning checks on product specifications. 
Veljavne določbe ne opredeljujejo minimalnih zahtev za preverjanja v zvezi s specifikacijami proizvodov, ki bi se jih morali držati pristojni organi in izvajalci nadzora.
The Commission in the preamble to the proposed regulation states that it includes references to the most relevant articles of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 to help Member States better apply the provisions of that regulation. 
Komisija v preambuli predlagane uredbe navaja, da vključuje sklice na najpomembnejše člene iz Uredbe (ES) št. 882/2004, da bi državam članicam pomagala bolje uporabljati določbe te uredbe.
These references still do not provide a clear idea on how the control system for Article 11 checks should be set up. 
Ti sklici ne zagotavljajo jasne slike o tem, kakšen naj bi bil sistem nadzora za preverjanja po členu 11.
Furthermore Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 focuses on control aspects specific to feed and food safety, animal health and welfare which are of limited relevance to Article 11 checks. 
882/2004 osredotoča na vidike nadzora, značilnega za varnost krme in hrane ter zdravje in dobro počutje živali, katerih pomen za preverjanja po členu 11 je omejen.
RECOMMENDATION 1 The legal provisions on the GI scheme should set out minimum requirements for Article 11 checks. 
PRIPOROČILO 1 Predpisi o shemi GO bi morali določati minimalne zahteve za preverjanja po členu 11.
They should address issues such as the minimum coverage of checks, their frequency, the methodology for their selection and the parties involved in the different stages of the production and distribution subject to control. 
Obravnavati bi morali zadeve, kot so minimalen obseg preverjanj, njihova pogostost, metodologija za njihovo izbiro in subjekti, vključeni v različne faze proizvodnje in distribucije, ki se preverjajo.
The possibility of setting up working groups could be considered in this context to facilitate sharing of best practices. Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
V zvezi s tem bi bilo treba preučiti možnost za ustanovitev delovnih skupin, da bi se olajšala izmenjava najboljših praks. Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
The Regulation does not address the questions of the obligatory character and nature of checks to be carried out by the Member States to prevent and detect disallowed practices. 
Uredba ne obravnava vprašanj v zvezi z obveznimi lastnostmi in naravo pregledov, ki jih morajo izvajati države članice za preprečevanje in odkrivanje prepovedane prakse.
As a result, most national authorities do not carry out regular checks aimed at detecting and suppressing cases of these practices. 
Rezultat tega je, da večina nacionalnih organov ne izvaja rednih pregledov za odkrivanje in preprečevanje primerov take prakse.
The Commission, in the proposed regulation, lays down that Member States have to take appropriate administrative and judicial steps to address disallowed practices and that checks related to this issue form part of the Member States’ official controls of the quality schemes. 
Komisija v predlagani uredbi določa, da morajo države članice izvesti ustrezne administrativne in sodne ukrepe za obravnavanje prepovedane prakse in da so s tem povezani pregledi del uradnega nadzora shem kakovosti, ki ga izvajajo države članice.
Additional details on the control system to be used for these checks are not provided; reference is made again to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, which is, however, subject to the same limitations as the ones described for Article 11 checks. 
Dodatne podrobnosti o sistemu nadzora za te preglede niso navedene, ampak je ponovno naveden sklic na Uredbo (ES) št. 882/2004, za katero pa veljajo enake omejitve, kot so opisane za preverjanja po členu 11.
32 RECOMMENDATION 2 Clear rules on a control system that provides for regular checks aiming at the detection and suppression of disallowed practices should be laid down in the legal provisions on the GI scheme. 
32 PRIPOROČILO 2 V predpisih o shemi GO bi bilo treba opredeliti jasna pravila o sistemu nadzora, ki bi določala redne preglede zaradi odkrivanja in preprečevanja prepovedane prakse.
They should be complemented by a system of mutual assistance adequate to the specific needs of the national authorities dealing with the GI scheme. 
Dopolnjevati bi jih moral sistem vzajemne pomoči, ki bi ustrezal posebnim potrebam nacionalnih organov, ki skrbijo za shemo GO.
Currently, the Commission does not closely monitor the implementation of the GI scheme in the Member States. 
Zaenkrat Komisija ne spremlja natančno izvajanja sheme GO v državah članicah.
No audits on the GI scheme have been carried out so far and a systematic desk review, only recently started, revealed incomplete information in Member States’ reporting. 
Doslej niso bile opravljene nobene revizije sheme GO, sistematičen pregled dokumentacije, ki je bil uveden šele pred kratkim, pa je pokazal, da so informacije v poročilih držav članic nepopolne.
This latter issue has been addressed in the proposed regulation, which provides that Member States shall include a separate section on the checks related to agricultural quality schemes in the MANCPs and the annual reports under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. 
To vprašanje je obravnavano v predlagani uredbi, ki določa, da morajo države članice v svoje večletne nacionalne načrte nadzora in letna poročila iz Uredbe (ES) št. 882/2004 vključiti poseben oddelek o pregledih v zvezi s shemami kakovosti v kmetijstvu.
Whilst this provision is a positive step, it remains to be seen whether it would allow the Commission to have complete information on the Member States’ control system and the controls carried out. 
Ta določba sicer pomeni pozitiven korak, vendar je treba videti, ali bo Komisiji omogočala dobiti popolne informacije o nadzornih sistemih držav članic in opravljenih pregledih.
RECOMMENDATION 3 The Commission should include audits on Member States’ checks of the GI scheme in its plan of regular audits in the Member States. Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
PRIPOROČILO 3 Komisija naj v svoj načrt rednih revizij v državah članicah vključi revizije pregledov držav članic v zvezi s shemo GO. Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
The success of the GI scheme depends, inter alia, on its usage by producers. 
Uspeh sheme GO je med drugim odvisen od tega, ali jo proizvajalci uporabljajo.
Potential exists for attracting further producers to join the GI scheme, especially in Member States where there is a low take-up of the GI scheme. 
Obstajajo možnosti za vključevanje dodatnih proizvajalcev v shemo GO, zlasti v državah članicah, v katerih je vključenost v shemo majhna.
However, the measures available are not adequate to encourage these producers to participate. 
Vendar razpoložljivi ukrepi ne zadostujejo za spodbujanje teh proizvajalcev k sodelovanju.
The Commission in this context made available in 2010 two draft guides on the application procedure and reduced in the proposed regulation the indicative deadline for its scrutiny of applications from 12 to 6 months. 
V zvezi s tem je Komisija leta 2010 priskrbela dva predloga vodnikov za postopek prijave in v predlagani uredbi skrajšala okvirni rok za svoj pregled vlog z dvanajstih na šest mesecev.
Consumer recognition of the scheme and its symbols is very low. 
Potrošniki zelo slabo poznajo shemo in njene simbole.
The means available for promotion and information about the GI scheme are unlikely to increase it. 
Ni verjetno, da se bo s sredstvi, ki so na voljo za promocijo sheme GO in informiranje o njej, to izboljšalo.
They are used to a limited extent only and are not based on a clear strategy on how to raise awareness of the GI scheme. 
Njihova uporaba je omejena in ne temelji na jasni strategiji o tem, kako naj se izboljša poznavanje sheme GO.
Various measures are available with limited success. 
Na voljo so različni ukrepi, ki pa so le delno uspešni.
33 RECOMMENDATION 4 The Court recommends that the Commission develops a unified strategy addressing the lack of awareness of the GI scheme. 
33 PRIPOROČILO 4 Sodišče priporoča, naj Komisija razvije enotno strategijo za reševanje preslabega poznavanja sheme GO.
It should explore more effective means of promoting the GI scheme, such as running a campaign on its own initiative. 
Preučiti bi morala uspešnejše načine za promocijo sheme GO, npr. izvajanje kampanje na svojo pobudo.
This report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mr Olavi ALA-NISSILÄ, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg, at its meeting of 20 July 2011. 
To poročilo je sprejel senat I, ki ga vodi g. Olavi ALA-NISSILÄ, član Evropskega računskega sodišča, v Luxembourgu na svojem zasedanju 20. julija 2011.
For the Court of Auditors Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA President Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
Za Računsko sodišče Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA Predsednik Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
34 Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? REPLY OF THE COMMISSION SUMMARY II. 
34 Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost? ODGOVORI KOMISIJE POVZETEK II.
The scheme is primarily an intellectual property right (IPR) registration system open to any applicant who meets the criteria. 
Shema je predvsem sistem registracije pravic intelektualne lastnine, dostopen vsakemu vložniku, ki izpolnjuje merila.
Registration depends only on whether the legal criteria set by the Council Regulation (EC) No 510/20061 are fulfilled. 
Registracija je odvisna samo od izpolnjevanja pravnih meril iz Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 510/20061.