natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
38 The average figure regarding the use of TA for the 2007–13 programming period (1. 57 %) and the estimated one for the 2014–20 programming period (1.97 %) reveal a moderate allocation by Member States and indicate that funds are only spent on needed activities related to the implementation of the RDPs. 
38 Povprečni znesek v zvezi z uporabo tehnične pomoči za programsko obdobje 2007–2013 (1,57 %) in predvideni znesek za programsko obdobje 2014– 2020 (1,97 %) razkrivata, da države članice dodeljujejo malo sredstev in da se sredstva porabijo samo za potrebne dejavnosti, povezane z izvajanjem programov razvoja podeželja.
Furthermore, the actual amount spent in 2007–13 (as of 31 October 2014) was only 70 % of the planned amounts indicated in the annex. 
Poleg tega je dejanski znesek, porabljen v obdobju 2007–2013 (na dan 31. oktobra 2014), predstavljal le 70 % načrtovanih zneskov, navedenih v Prilogi.
Therefore, only 1.16 % of the executed budget for 2007–13 has been actually dedicated to TA. 
Zato je bilo samo 1,16 % izvršenega proračuna za obdobje 2007–2013 dejansko namenjenega tehnični pomoči.
See also Commission reply to paragraph 13. 
Glej tudi odgovor Komisije na odstavek 13.
Common Commission reply to paragraphs 40 and 41 Sound financial management and ambitious policy objectives in rural development policy require enhanced administrative capacities in the Member States. 
Skupni odgovor Komisije na odstavka 40 in 41 Dobro finančno upravljanje in ambiciozni politični cilji na področju politike razvoja podeželja zahtevajo okrepljene upravne zmogljivosti v državah članicah.
In order to ensure an adequate implementa‐ tion, an increased use of resources was dedicated to maintain administrative capacity in Member States. 
Da se zagotovi ustrezno izvajanje, je bila zagotovljena večja poraba sredstev za ohranjanje upravne zmogljivosti v državah članicah.
Moreover, the audited period was affected by a severe economic crisis, especially in certain Member States where national administrations experienced important cuts and lack of resources. 
Poleg tega je na revidirano obdobje vplivala huda gospodarska kriza, zlasti v nekaterih državah članicah, kjer so se nacionalne uprave soočale z velikim zmanjševanjem in pomanjkanjem sredstev.
In order to ensure a sound implementation of the policy and reduce the increasing level of error rate, such administrations sought EU funding through TA support. 
Za zagotovitev učinkovitega izvajanja politike in zmanjšanje naraščajoče stopnje napak so takšne uprave skušale pridobiti sredstva EU iz podpore za tehnično pomoč.
43 Article 66(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 states that ‘At the initiative of the Member States, for each rural development programme, the EAFRD may finance preparation, management, monitoring, evaluation, information and control activities of programme assistance. 
43 Člen 66(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005 določa: „Na pobudo držav članic lahko EKSRP za vsak program razvoja podeželja financira dejavnosti priprave, upravljanja, spremljanja, vrednotenja ter informiranja in nadzora, ki se nanašajo na podporo programu.
Up to 4 % of the total amount for each programme may be devoted to these activities.’ 
Tem ukrepom se lahko nameni do 4 % celotnega zneska za vsako dejavnost.“ V skladu s členom 71(3) Uredbe (ES) št.
According to Article 71(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, it is for the competent national authorities to set the rules on eligibility of expendi‐ ture, subject to the special conditions laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 for certain rural devel‐ opment measures. 
1698/2005 morajo pristojni nacionalni organi določiti pravila o upravičenosti izdatkov, ob upoštevanju posebnih pogojev, ki so določeni v Uredbi (ES) št. 1698/2005 za nekatere ukrepe za razvoj podeželja.
45 The Commission considers that reallocation of appropriations to management improves proces‐ sing of aid applications and better advisory ser‐ vices rendered to RDPs’ beneficiaries, especially with regard to complex investment measures, thus improving the overall programme implementation. 
45 Komisija meni, da se s prerazporeditvijo odobrenih proračunskih sredstev na upravljanje izboljšajo obravnava zahtevkov za pomoč in svetovalne storitve, zagotovljene upravičencem v okviru programov razvoja podeželja, zlasti v zvezi z zapletenimi naložbenimi ukrepi, s tem pa se izboljša tudi celotno izvajanje programa.
46 TA is partly used for the overall management of RDPs which is considered by decision‐makers a nec‐ essary support for the implementation of the policy. 
46 Tehnična pomoč se delno uporablja za splošno upravljanje programov razvoja podeželja, kar po mnenju nosilcev odločanja pomeni nujno podporo za izvajanje politike.
Therefore, it should be assessed in the light of the performance indicators of the RDPs. 
Zato bi jo bilo treba oceniti ob upoštevanju kazalnikov uspešnosti programov razvoja podeželja.
47 TA is largely used for easing the administrative burden of the beneficiaries, improving their knowl‐ edge on, and information about, the programme implementation, or making full use of IT tools and e‐administration. 
47 Tehnična pomoč se večinoma uporablja za zmanjšanje upravnega bremena upravičencev, izboljšanje njihovega znanja in informacij o izvajanju programa ali polno izkoriščanje orodij informacijske tehnologije in e-uprave.
Therefore, TA expenditure, even if dedicated partly to budget support, has a positive impact for the beneficiaries. 
Zato imajo odhodki za tehnično pomoč, tudi če so deloma namenjeni za proračunsko podporo, pozitivne učinke za upravičence.
Reply of the Commission 42 48 National administrations in economically weaker Member States need increased support to meet EU commitments and obligations in terms of programme implementation. 
Odgovori Komisije 42 48 Nacionalne uprave v gospodarsko šibkejših državah članicah potrebujejo večjo podporo za izpolnjevanje zavez in obveznosti EU v zvezi z izvajanjem programa.
Such expenditure is needed to finance administrative resources linked to the implementation of the programme. 
Takšni odhodki so potrebni za financiranje upravnih sredstev, povezanih z izvajanjem programa.
Poland’s TA spending in percentage terms is rela‐ tively low. 
Poraba Poljske za tehnično pomoč v odstotkih je razmeroma nizka.
49 TA supports the implementation of the key objec‐ tives of the policy, which would not be achieved in the absence of such funding. 
49 Tehnična pomoč podpira izvajanje ključnih ciljev politike, ki brez takšnega financiranja ne bi bili doseženi.
Therefore, the Commission believes that TA expenditure does not divert substantial resources from the objec‐ tives of the policy, but on the contrary, it reinforces the implementation arrangements in the Member States. 
Zato Komisija meni, da odhodki za tehnično pomoč ne preusmerjajo znatnih sredstev s ciljev politike, temveč nasprotno krepijo ureditve za izvajanje v državah članicah.
Only 1.16 % of the expenditure was spent on TA in 2007–13 (of a possible ceiling of 4 %). 
V programskem obdobju 2007–2013 je bilo za tehnično pomoč porabljenih samo 1,16 % odhodkov (od možne zgornje meje v višini 4 %).
This relatively minor percentage of rural development expendi‐ ture does not show any will to maximise payments towards administrative costs of the Member States. 
Ta razmeroma majhen odstotek odhodkov za razvoj podeželja ne kaže nobene težnje po povečanju plačil za administrativne stroške držav članic.
Box 1 Considering that the TA budget finances some overheads attributable to programme implementa‐ tion, the share of such expenditure compared to the overall budget of the policy (i.e. 1.16 %) seems to be very limited. 
Okvir 1 Ob upoštevanju, da se s proračunom za tehnično pomoč financirajo nekateri režijski stroški, povezani z izvajanjem programa, se zdi, da je delež takšnih odhodkov v primerjavi s celotnim proračunom politike (tj. 1,16 %) zelo omejen.
In the Commission’s opinion, although the cost of controls in Member States should not be increased, emphasis should be put on the need to improve the quality and efficiency of controls. 
Komisija meni, da se stroški kontrol v državah članicah ne bi smeli povečati, poudarek pa bi moral biti na potrebi po izboljšanju kakovosti in učinkovitosti kontrol.
Obligations linked to management, control, infor‐ mation, publicity, networking monitoring and evaluation are necessary for a performing policy and their costs should be co‐financed by the EAFRD. 
Obveznosti, povezane z upravljanjem, nadzorom, informiranjem, obveščanjem, spremljanjem mreženja in vrednotenjem, so potrebne za izvajanje politike, njihove stroške pa bi moral sofinancirati EKSRP.
50 The Commission has presented guidelines to Member States on the use of TA for the 2014–20 programming period in the framework of the Rural Development Committee. 
50 Komisija je državam članicam predstavila smernice o uporabi tehnične pomoči za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 v okviru Odbora za razvoj podeželja.
51 The table in the annex is based on draft RDPs sub‐ mitted by the Member States, the majority of which are still under discussion. 
51 Preglednica v Prilogi temelji na osnutkih programov razvoja podeželja, ki so jih predložile države članice in so večinoma še v razpravi.
54 The Commission is conducting a number of audits in the Member States to verify TA expenditure. 
54 Komisija v državah članicah izvaja številne revizije, da bi preverila odhodke za tehnično pomoč.
Errors reported by the Commission and the ECA are followed up and financial corrections are proposed. 
Ukrepanje po napakah, o katerih sta poročala Komisija in Evropsko računsko sodišče, se spremlja in predlagani so finančni popravki.
The legal framework for 2014–20 programming period has been reinforced. 
Pravni okvir za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 je bil okrepljen.
The guidance fiche presented to Member States includes the following recommendation: ‘The administrative costs of the beneficiaries financed through technical assistance, including staff costs, should clearly be determined (type of administrative costs and criteria for attribu‐ tion). 
Smernice, predstavljene državam članicam, vključujejo naslednja priporočila: „Administrativni stroški upravičencev, financirani s tehnično pomočjo, vključno s stroški osebja, bi morali biti jasno določeni (vrsta administrativnih stroškov in merila za dodelitev).
In addition, when beneficiaries are also imple‐ menting other Funds (i.e. ESIF or EAGF), the verifi‐ ability and measurability of the administrative costs financed technical assistance must be ensured’. 55 Member States are made aware that TA can only relate to the RDPs and that a clear separation of administrative costs and staff costs related to Pillars I and II must be proven. See also reply to 54. 
Poleg tega morata biti v primeru, če upravičenci izvajajo tudi druge sklade (tj. evropske strukturne in investicijske sklade ali EKJS), zagotovljeni preverljivost in merljivost administrativnih stroškov, financiranih s tehnično pomočjo.“ 55 Države članice se zavedajo, da se lahko tehnična pomoč nanaša samo na programe razvoja podeželja in da je treba dokazati jasno ločevanje administrativnih stroškov in stroškov osebja, povezanih s prvim in drugim stebrom. Glej tudi odgovor na odstavek 54.
Reply of the Commission 43 Specific assurances with regard to compliance, in particular with respect to rules on competition and public procurement, have been provided by the Italian managing authority in the annual progress report. 
Odgovori Komisije 43 Italijanski organ upravljanja je v letnem poročilu o napredku podal posebna zagotovila v zvezi s skladnostjo, zlasti glede upoštevanja pravil o konkurenci in javnem naročanju.
Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1305/2013 broad‐ ened the domain where an independent expert should perform or confirm the calculations. 
Člen 62 Uredbe (EU) št. 1305/2013 je razširil področje, na katerem bi moral neodvisni strokovnjak opraviti ali potrditi izračune.
It also covers all operations where simplified cost options are used. 
Vključevalo bo tudi vse dejavnosti, pri katerih bodo uporabljene poenostavljene možnosti obračunavanja stroškov.
62 In the 2014–20 programming period, the NRNs will be monitored through three specific output indica‐ tors (Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 808/2014). 
62 V programskem obdobju 2014–2020 se bodo nacionalne mreže za podeželje spremljale s tremi posebnimi kazalniki učinka (Priloga IV k Uredbi (EU) št. 808/2014).
As for other activities funded under TA, the guidance fiche presented to Member States includes the fol‐ lowing recommendation: ‘In order to comply with the general principles of sound financial manage‐ ment of EU funds, technical assistance expenditure should be based on SMART operational objectives (Article 30, Financial Regulation (EC) No 966/2012), following appropriate needs assessment. 
Tako kot za druge dejavnosti, financirane v okviru tehnične pomoči, smernice, predstavljene državam članicam, vključujejo naslednje priporočilo: „Za skladnost s splošnimi načeli dobrega finančnega upravljanja skladov EU bi morali odhodki za tehnično pomoč temeljiti na operativnih ciljih SMART (člen 30 finančne uredbe (Uredba (EU, Euratom) št.
The out‐ puts should be monitored and evaluated, based on performance indicators. 
Učinke bi bilo treba spremljati in vrednotiti na podlagi kazalnikov uspešnosti.
Member States are encour‐ aged to establish additional specific indicators for technical assistance ’. Box 4 The RDPs are implemented through the measures which require support in the form of TA for their overall sound implementation. 
Države članice se spodbuja, da vzpostavijo posebne dodatne kazalnike za tehnično pomoč.“ Okvir 4 Programi razvoja podeželja se izvajajo z ukrepi, ki zahtevajo podporo v obliki tehnične pomoči za njihovo celotno učinkovito izvajanje.
In this sense, the Commission considers the measures being the policy tools (toolkit) and TA a cross‐cutting activity supporting the effective management of the RDPs. 
V tem smislu Komisija obravnava ukrepe kot orodje (zbirko oro-dij) politike in tehnično pomoč kot medsektorsko dejavnost, ki podpira učinkovito upravljanje programov razvoja podeželja.
Box 2 According to the Lithuanian authorities, the min‐ istry approves regularly updated lists of employ‐ ees partially assigned to work on RDPs together with specific percentages of their working time. 
Okvir 2 Po navedbah litovskih organov ministrstvo potrjuje redno posodobljene sezname zaposlenih, ki jim je delno dodeljeno delo na programih razvoja podeželja, skupaj z določenim odstotkom njihovega delovnega časa.
In the paying agency, the pro rata attribution of the working time of the staff is established tak‐ ing into account different funds managed by the agency, tasks and functions assigned, action plans approved, planned calls for proposals and their processing, on‐the‐spot checks etc. As regards Hungary, on 19 December 2014, the Commission reminded the Hungarian authorities that for 2014–20 programming period a list of the beneficiaries of TA should be provided. 
V plačilni agenciji se sorazmerna porazdelitev delovnega časa osebja določi ob upoštevanju različnih skladov, ki jih upravlja agencija, dodeljenih nalog in funkcij, odobrenih akcijskih načrtov, načrtovanih pozivov za zbiranje predlogov in njihove izvedbe, pregledov na kraju samem itd. Kar zadeva Madžarsko, je Komisija 19. decembra 2014 spomnila madžarske organe, da je treba za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 predložiti seznam upravičencev do tehnične pomoči.
In addition, where beneficiaries also implement other funds (i.e. ESIF or EAGF), the verifiability and measurability of the administrative costs financed must be ensured. 
Poleg tega morata biti v primeru, če upravičenci izvajajo tudi druge sklade (tj. evropske strukturne in investicijske sklade ali EKJS), zagotovljeni preverljivost in merljivost financiranih administrativnih stroškov.
As regards Austria, during the 2014–20 programme negotiations, the authorities were made aware that TA can only relate to the RDPs and that a clear sepa‐ ration of administrative costs and staff costs related to Pillars I and II must be proven. 
Kar zadeva Avstrijo, so bili organi med pogajanji o programu za obdobje 2014–2020 seznanjeni, da se lahko tehnična pomoč nanaša samo na programe razvoja podeželja in da je treba dokazati jasno ločevanje administrativnih stroškov in stroškov osebja, povezanih s prvim in drugim stebrom.
As regards Poland, the coefficients were estimated on the assumption that the share between Pillar I and II was unlikely to be changed over the period. 
Za Poljsko so bili koeficienti ocenjeni ob predpostavki, da se delež med prvim in drugim stebrom v zadevnem obdobju verjetno ne bo spremenil.
It shall be noted that the Commission takes into account the Court’s observations during its own audits. 
Treba je opozoriti, da Komisija pri svojih revizijah upošteva pripombe Sodišča.
See also reply to paragraph 55. 
Glej tudi odgovor na odstavek 55.
56 See Commission reply to paragraph 54. 
56 Glej odgovor Komisije na odstavek 54.
Box 3 The Commission has repeatedly stressed the importance of compliance with the rules on public procurement in bilateral meetings and in various documents exchanged with the managing authori‐ ties in line with Article 82(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
Okvir 3 Komisija je na dvostranskih srečanjih in v različnih dokumentih, izmenjanih z organi upravljanja v skladu s členom 82(2)(f) Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005, večkrat poudarila pomembnost skladnosti s pravili o javnem naročanju.
Reply of the Commission 44 The intention to consider TA as separate from the measures is clearly evidenced by the fact that they are set in different chapters in the rural devel‐ opment legislation. 
Odgovori Komisije 44 Namero, da se tehnična pomoč prouči ločeno od ukrepov, jasno dokazuje dejstvo, da so določeni v različnih poglavjih zakonodaje na področju razvoja podeželja.
For instance, in the case of Regulation (EC) No 1305/2013, Chapter I of Title III describes the measures, Chapter II describes the common provisions for several measures and Chapter III describes TA and networking. 
Na primer kot v Uredbi (EU) št. 1305/2013: poglavje I naslova III opisuje ukrepe, poglavje II opisuje skupne določbe za nekatere ukrepe, poglavje III pa opisuje tehnično pomoč in mreženje.
Clearly TA is separated from the measures. 
Tehnična pomoč je jasno ločena od ukrepov.
However, this separation does not entail that TA is not monitored or evaluated. 
Vendar to ločevanje ne pomeni, da se tehnična pomoč ne spremlja ali vrednoti.
The RDPs are properly planned, moni‐ tored and evaluated and the effects of TA underpin sound implementation and effective delivery of the RDPs as a whole. 
Programi razvoja podeželja so ustrezno načrtovani, spremljani in vrednoteni, učinki tehnične pomoči pa podpirajo učinkovito izvajanje in zagotavljanje programov razvoja podeželja kot celote.
As regards Austria, the funding of administra‐ tive costs executed by the paying agency was in line with the relevant EU legislation and therefore approved by the Commission. 
Kar zadeva Avstrijo, je bilo financiranje administrativnih stroškov, ki ga je izvedla plačilna agencija, skladno z ustrezno zakonodajo EU, zato ga je Komisija odobrila.
63 Since the monitoring and evaluation framework assesses the overall performance of the RDPs, an overspending on (non‐operational) costs that do not contribute to programme performance would be reflected in a lower overall performance. 
63 Ker okvir spremljanja in vrednotenja ocenjuje splošno uspešnost programov razvoja podeželja, bi se prekomerna poraba sredstev za (neoperativne) stroške, ki ne prispevajo k uspešnosti programov, kazala v manjši splošni uspešnosti.
There‐ fore, the Commission considers that the contribu‐ tion of TA is indirectly included in the assessment. 
Zato Komisija meni, da je prispevek tehnične pomoči posredno vključen v oceno.
64 Objectives and targets are set appropriately at the level of the RDPs. 
64 Splošni in posamični cilji so ustrezno določeni na ravni programov razvoja podeželja.
See also Commission reply to paragraph 62. 
Glej tudi odgovor Komisije na odstavek 62.
67 Member States are required to evaluate how the medium and long‐term needs can be covered by the RDPs as a whole. 
67 Države članice morajo ovrednotiti, kako se lahko srednje-in dolgoročne potrebe vključijo v programe razvoja podeželja kot celote.
Programme amendments must be duly justified by Member States and where TA expenditure is to be modified, concrete reasoning must be provided. 
Države članice morajo spremembe programa ustrezno utemeljiti in navesti konkretne razloge, če je treba spremeniti odhodke za tehnično pomoč.
Moreover, the example of Poland demonstrates possible difficulty in preparation of a separate meaningful long‐term assessment of needs in the area of TA. 
Poleg tega primer Poljske kaže na možno težavo pri pripravi ločene smiselne dolgoročne ocene potreb na področju tehnične pomoči.
69 The Commission did not set separate objectives for all TA funding because it considered it not to be necessary, cost‐effective or proportional. 
69 Komisija ni določila ločenih ciljev za celotno financiranje v okviru tehnične pomoči, ker po njenem mnenju to ni bilo potrebno, stroškovno učinkovito ali sorazmerno.
However, where relevant, it has developed multiannual plan‐ ning and related milestones (evaluation, IT schema directeur, etc.). 
Vendar je, kjer je bilo to ustrezno, razvila večletno načrtovanje in s tem povezane mejnike (vrednotenje, glavna shema informacijske tehnologije itd.).
73 TA was not mentioned separately in general guid‐ ance on the CMEF because the performance requirements are indirectly covered and measured under the performance of the measures to which they contribute. 
73 V splošnih smernicah o okviru skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja tehnična pomoč ni bila ločeno navedena, ker so zahteve glede uspešnosti posredno vključene in merjene v okviru izvajanja ukrepov, h katerim prispevajo.
The CMEF foresees the use of RDPs’ additional indicators (Article 81(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005) to be defined by the Member States in order to allow the monitoring and evaluation of the specificities of the RDPs. 
Okvir skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja predvideva uporabo dodatnih kazalnikov v okviru programov razvoja podeželja (člen 81(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005), ki jih določijo države članice, da omogočijo spremljanje in vrednotenje posebnosti programov razvoja podeželja.
It also introduced common evaluation questions for the TA to be evaluated in the mid‐term and ex post evaluations. 
Uvedel je tudi skupna vprašanja za vrednotenje za tehnično pomoč, ki jo je treba ovrednotiti pri vmesnih in naknadnih vrednotenjih.
75 Given the wide variety of needs covered by TA, separating the monitoring and evaluation from the elements of the RDPs to which they contribute would necessitate a very large and costly framework to follow up relatively low expenditure. 
75 Glede na veliko različnih potreb, ki jih zajema tehnična pomoč, bi ločevanje spremljanja in vrednotenja od elementov programov razvoja podeželja, h katerim prispevajo, zahtevalo zelo obsežen in drag okvir za spremljanje razmeroma nizkih odhodkov.
According to Annex VII of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, the annual progress report should contain information on the steps taken by the managing authority and the monitoring committee to ensure the quality and effectiveness of programme implementation, including TA. 
1974/2006 bi moralo letno poročilo o napredku vsebovati informacije o ukrepih, ki sta jih sprejela organ upravljanja in odbor za spremljanje, da bi zagotovila kakovost in učinkovitost izvajanja programov, vključno s tehnično pomočjo.
However, the evaluation of RDPs (including performance and impact assessments) should be performed in the mid‐term and ex post evaluations. 
Vendar bi se moralo vrednotenje programov razvoja podeželja (vključno z ocenami uspešnosti in učinka) izvajati pri vmesnih in naknadnih vrednotenjih.