natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Simplification measures, such as the small farmers’ scheme, relieving administrations and farmers of additional burdens need to be balanced against the necessity to achieve the objectives of cross‐compliance (paragraphs 41 to 52). 
Ukrepe za poenostavitev, kot je shema za male kmete, ki prispevajo k zmanjšanju dodatne obremenitve za upravne organe in kmete, je treba uskladiti s potrebo po doseganju ciljev navzkrižne skladnosti (odstavki 41 do 52).
Recommendation 3 For the CAP post‐2020, the Commission should propose adapting the rules regarding cross‐compliance on‐the‐spot checks. This would allow a more effective targeting of key control points. 
Priporočilo 3 Komisija naj za SKP po letu 2020 predlaga prilagoditev pravil v zvezi s pregledi navzkrižne skladnosti na kraju samem, kar bi omogočilo uspešnejše usmerjanje ključnih kontrolnih točk.
Conclusions and recommendations 34 77 A new greening payment was introduced in the CAP for the period 2014–2020. 
Zaključki in priporočila 34 77 Novo plačilo za zeleno komponento je bilo uvedeno v SKP za obdobje 2014–2020.
Despite their similarities, the compulsory GAEC and greening rules are checked under two control systems. 
Čeprav so podobni, se obvezni standardi dobrih kmetijskih in okoljskih pogojev in pravila za zeleno komponento preverjajo z dvema sistemoma kontrole.
This may lead to inefficiencies in the control systems and an additional administrative burden (paragraphs 53 to 58). 
To lahko povzroči neučinkovitost sistemov kontrole in dodatno upravno breme (odstavki 53 do 58).
Recommendation 4 The Commission should analyse as part of the impact assessment for the CAP post‐2020 the experience of having two systems operating with similar environmental objectives (GAEC standards and greening) with a view to promoting further synergy between them. 
Priporočilo 4 Komisija naj v okviru ocene učinka za SKP po letu 2020 analizira izkušnje z uporabo dveh sistemov s podobnimi okoljskimi cilji (dobri kmetijski in okoljski pogoji in zelena komponenta), da bi izboljšala sinergije med njima.
This analysis should take into consideration criteria such as the environmental impact of the standards and the historical level of compliance by farmers. 
Pri tej analizi naj upošteva merila, kot so vpliv standardov na okolje in to, v kolikšni meri so kmetje izpolnjevali obveznosti navzkrižne skladnosti v preteklosti.
78 The costs of implementing cross‐compliance are not sufficiently quantified. 
78 Stroški izvajanja navzkrižne skladnosti niso dovolj kvantificirani.
However, it would be necessary to assess the aggregate costs of cross‐compliance at EU, Member State and farmer level in order to design and implement a cost‐effective policy. 
Toda oceniti bi bilo treba skupne stroške navzkrižne skladnosti na ravni EU, držav članic in kmetov, da bi se oblikovala in izvajala stroškovno učinkovita politika.
This calculation should be an important input for any policy changes, in order to ensure that disproportionate costs are not incurred in trying to achieve the intended results, or that alternative instruments which would provide a better cost‐benefit ratio are considered (paragraphs 59 to 64). 
Ta izračun bi se moral kot pomemben podatek upoštevati pri vsaki spremembi politike za zagotovitev, da pri prizadevanjih za doseganje predvidenih rezultatov ne bi nastajali nesorazmerni stroški in da bi se proučila možnost uporabe alternativnih instrumentov, ki bi zagotovili boljše razmerje med stroški in koristmi (odstavki 59 do 64).
Recommendation 5 After the report on the performance of the CAP due by the end of 2018, the Commission should develop a methodology to measure the costs of cross‐compliance. 
Priporočilo 5 Po poročilu o smotrnosti SKP, ki ga je treba predložiti do konca leta 2018, naj Komisija razvije metodologijo za merjenje stroškov navzkrižne skladnosti.
Conclusions and recommendations 35 79 Penalties for non‐compliance are calculated on the basis of the severity, extent, permanence and reoccurrence of the non‐compliance found, as well as depending on whether the farmer breached the rules negligently or intentionally. 
Zaključki in priporočila 35 79 Kazni za neupoštevanje pravil se izračunajo na podlagi resnosti, obsega, stalnosti in ponovitve ugotovljenega neupoštevanja pravil ter glede na to, ali kmet pravil ni upošteval iz malomarnosti ali namerno.
In practice, we observed that the application of penalties varied significantly between Member States (paragraphs 65 to 71). 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so v praksi države članice kazni uporabljale zelo različno (odstavki 65 do 70).
Recommendation 6 For the CAP post‐2020, the Commission should encourage a more harmonised application of penalties at EU level by further clarifying the concepts of severity, extent, permanence, reoccurrence and intentionality. 
Priporočilo 6 Za SKP po letu 2020 naj Komisija spodbuja bolj usklajeno uporabo kazni na ravni EU, tako da dodatno pojasni pojme resnosti, obsega, trajnosti, ponovitve in namernosti kršitev.
This Report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mr Phil WYNN OWEN, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 7 September 2016. 
Poročilo je sprejel senat I, ki ga vodi član Evropskega računskega sodišča Phil WYNN OWEN, v Luxembourgu na zasedanju 7. septembra 2016.
Annexes 36 The scope of cross‐compliance rules, as per Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council Annex I 
(3) Kot se izvaja zlasti z: — členom 14 Uredbe (ES) št.
Annexes 37 Annex I 
Priloga I
Annexes 38 Main changes in the scope of cross‐compliance rules for the CAP 2014–2020 Pursuant to Article 93 and Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, the rules were grouped in a single list of 13 SMRs and seven GAECs. 
Priloge 38 Glavne spremembe področja uporabe pravil o navzkrižni skladnosti za SKP za obdobje 2014–2020 V skladu s členom 93 in Prilogo II k Uredbi (EU) št. 1306/2013 so bila pravila združena v enoten seznam 13 PZR in 7 standardov dobrih kmetijskih in okoljskih pogojev.
The main changes compared to the previous legislation and the justification provided by the Commission were: ‐ removal of the seven optional GAECs (in order to promote a more even implementation of GAECs by Member States); ‐ removal of the SMR on the use of sewage sludge ( requirements generally applied to sewage companies rather than to farmers); ‐ removal of three SMRs on notification of animal diseases (the systematic cross‐compliance controls were not suitable for exceptional disease occurrences); ‐ reducing the scope of the two SMRs on the conservation of wild birds and natural habitats (infringements could only be identified if farmers were caught ‘red handed’. 
Spodaj so navedene glavne spremembe v primerjavi s predhodno zakonodajo in utemeljitve Komisije: – odprava sedmih izbirnih standardov dobrih kmetijskih in okoljskih pogojev (da bi države članice spodbudili k njihovem enakomernejšem izvajanju), – odprava PZR za uporabo blata iz čistilnih naprav (zahteve so na splošno veljale bolj za čistilne naprave kot za kmete), – odprava treh PZR za prijavljanje živalskih bolezni (sistematične kontrole navzkrižne skladnosti niso bile primerne za izredne pojave bolezni), – zmanjšanje področja uporabe PZR za ohranjanje prosto živečih ptic in naravnih habitatov (kršitve bi se lahko ugotovile le, če bi bili kmetje zasačeni pri samem dejanju; kontrole navzkrižne skladnosti, ki so že po naravi sistematične, niso bile primerne za tako vrsto kršitev), – preoblikovanje PZR za zaščito podtalnice pred onesnaževanjem v nov standard dobrih kmetijskih in okoljskih pogojev, – preoblikovanje standarda dobrih kmetijskih in okoljskih pogojev za zaščito trajnih pašnikov v eno od treh praks v okviru plačila za zeleno komponento, – standard dobrih kmetijskih in okoljskih pogojev za preprečevanje širitve nezaželene vegetacije je postal merilo za upravičenost v okviru osnovne sheme neposrednih plačil.
Annexes 39 Stakeholders expressed a need for further simplification During the 38th Conference of Directors of Paying Agencies held in Luxembourg in November 2015, the ad‐hoc working group with the theme ‘Simplification – cross‐compliance’ concluded that, in the long‐term for the CAP post‐2020, the cross‐compliance system ‘needs to be reformed and simplified’. 
Priloge 39 Deležniki so izrazili potrebo po dodatni poenostavitvi Na 38. konferenci direktorjev plačilnih agencij, ki je potekala novembra 2015 v Luxembourgu, je začasna delovna skupina za področje Poenostavitev – navzkrižna skladnost prišla do zaključka, da je treba sistem navzkrižne skladnosti za SKP po letu 2020 dolgoročno reformirati in poenostaviti.
Three priority areas were identified: ‐ limit the checks performed on‐the‐spot to relevant, objectively controllable cross‐compliance that can be applied in a way that provides full legal certainty; ‐ make sure that the rules which form part of cross‐compliance are relevant, by taking into account their importance for the agricultural sector, the number of farmers concerned, the frequency of the related activity and the difficulties of legal certainty when checking certain rules; ‐ remove the general rule on reductions for intentional non‐compliance and add more proportionate rules on reductions and penalties. 
Opredeljena so bila tri prednostna področja: – omejiti preglede, ki se izvajajo na kraju samem, na relevantno navzkrižno skladnost, za katero je mogoče izvajati objektivno kontrolo in ki jo je mogoče uporabljati na način, ki zagotavlja polno pravno varnost, – zagotoviti, da so pravila, ki so del navzkrižne skladnosti, relevantna, pri čemer je treba upoštevati njihovo pomembnost za kmetijski sektor, število kmetov, ki jih pravila zadevajo, pogostost zadevne dejavnosti in težave v zvezi s pravno varnostjo pri preverjanju posameznih pravil, – odpraviti splošno pravilo o znižanjih za namerno neupoštevanje pravil ter dodati bolj sorazmerna pravila o znižanjih in kaznih.
One of the open‐answer questions in our survey was to request suggestions for the main three measures that could help simplify the cross‐compliance system and/or make it more effective. 
Anketa Sodišča je vključevala vprašanje, v katerem so bile plačilne agencije pozvane, naj v opisnem odgovoru predlagajo tri glavne ukrepe, ki bi prispevali k poenostavitvi sistema navzkrižne skladnosti in/ali povečali njegovo uspešnost.
The three proposals most often mentioned by the Paying Agencies were, in frequency order: ‐ reducing the number of cross‐compliance requirements by focusing on those which are considered to be the most important and strictly relevant to the farming activity; ‐ changing the sanctions system by, for example: eliminating the concept of intentional non‐compliance; introducing an element of tolerance before a non‐compliance is determined (for example, where animal registration and identification is involved); simplifying the method of calculating reductions and penalties (which is currently based on the concepts of extent, severity and permanence); ‐ reducing the extent of on‐the‐spot checks by: sample‐based testing, for example in the case of farms with large herds; focused testing on the most risky areas, with reduced levels of checks for standards where insignificant levels of non‐compliance are found; eliminating those control points which cannot always be reliably verified on‐the‐spot. 
Trije predlogi, ki so jih plačilne agencije najpogosteje navedle, so bili (glede na pogostnost): – zmanjšanje števila zahtev navzkrižne skladnosti z osredotočanjem na tiste zahteve, ki štejejo za najpomembnejše in so izključno relevantne za kmetijsko dejavnost, – sprememba sistema sankcij, na primer z: odpravo koncepta namernega neizpolnjevanja pravil; uvedbo elementa tolerance preden se sklene, da gre za neizpolnjevanje pravil (na primer pri registraciji in identifikaciji živali); poenostavitvijo metode izračuna znižanj in kazni (ki zdaj temelji na konceptih obsega, resnosti in trajnosti); – zmanjšanjem obsega pregledov na kraju samem s: preizkušanjem na podlagi vzorcev, na primer v primeru kmetij z velikimi čredami; preizkušanjem, osredotočenim na najbolj tvegana področja, z zmanjšanimi ravnmi pregledov za standarde, pri katerih so bile ugotovljene nepomembne ravni neupoštevanja pravil; odpravo kontrolnih točk, ki jih na kraju samem ni mogoče vedno zanesljivo preveriti.
In addition, Farm Advisory Bodies surveyed also proposed giving farmers more help by, for example: providing training in record‐keeping; practical guides and manuals; more reader‐friendly information; campaigns on cross‐compliance’s positive effects on the environment, food safety and animal welfare. 
Poleg tega so kmetijske svetovalne službe, vključene v anketo, predlagale tudi, da bi se kmetom zagotovila večja pomoč, na primer z: zagotavljanjem usposabljanja o vodenju evidenc; praktičnimi smernicami in priročniki; informacijami, ki so bralcu prijaznejše; kampanjami o pozitivnih učinkih navzkrižne skladnosti na okolje, varnost hrane in dobrobit živali.
The farmers’ associations we met in the three Member States also identified priorities for simplification along the same lines: reducing the number of cross‐compliance rules, changing the sanction system (eliminating the concept of intentionality, more tolerance, and simplification of the penalty calculation methodology) and better targeting of controls towards the riskiest farmers. 
Tudi združenja kmetov, ki jih je Sodišče obiskalo v treh državah članicah, so podobno opredelila prioritete za poenostavitev, in sicer: zmanjšanje števila pravil o navzkrižni skladnosti, sprememba sistema sankcij (odprava koncepta namernosti, večja toleranca in poenostavitev metodologije za izračun sankcij) ter boljše ciljno usmerjanje kontrol v kmete, pri katerih obstaja največje tveganje.
Annexes 40 Case studies included in the survey sent to Paying Agencies Farmer XY was randomly selected for an on‐the‐spot cross‐compliance check of SMR 7 for the 2014 claim year. 
Priloge 40 Študiji primera, vključeni v anketo, ki je bila poslana plačilnim agencijam Kmet XY je bil naključno izbran za pregled na kraju samem v zvezi s predpisano zahtevo ravnanja 7 za leto vložitve zahtevkov 2014.
The farmer had not been selected for on‐the‐spot checks in the previous 3 years. 
V preteklih treh letih kmet ni bil izbran za preglede na kraju samem.
The farmer submitted a claim for the 2014 claim year, where he declared 70 ha and 80 bovines. 
Predložil je zahtevek za leto 2014, v katerem je prijavil 70 ha in 80 glav goveda.
The total amount of direct payments to which the farmer is entitled is 25 000 euro. 
Skupni znesek neposrednih plačil, do katerih je kmet upravičen, je 25 000 EUR.
During the on‐the‐spot check, the inspectors checked the farm register for animals and supporting documents attesting to the declaration and registration of animals (births, deaths). 
Med pregledom na kraju samem so inšpektorji pregledali register kmetije v zvezi z živalmi in dokazila o prijavi in registraciji živali (rojstva in pogini).
The inspectors found that 20 animals were registered after the deadline of 7 days (periods of 8 to 20 days were noted). 
Inšpektorji so ugotovili, da je bilo 20 živali registriranih po preteku 7-dnevnega roka (zabeležena so bila obdobja od 8 do 20 dni).
The average number of animals during the 2014 calendar year was 75. 
Povprečno število živali v koledarskem letu 2014 je bilo 75.
The inspectors also found that during the 2013 calendar year the farmer had declared 10 animals after the 7 day deadline. 
Inšpektorji so ugotovili tudi, da je kmet v koledarskem letu 2013 deset živali prijavil po preteku 7-dnevnega roka.
The average number of animals in 2013 was 70. 
Povprečno število živali v letu 2013 je bilo 70.
Please indicate whether you would apply a penalty for the 2014 claim year. 
Prosimo, navedite, ali bi za leto vložitve zahtevkov 2014 izrekli kazen.
If so, please indicate the % of penalty to be applied in accordance with national and/or regional legislation and norms. 
V primeru pritrdilnega odgovora navedite odstotek kazni, ki bi jo naložili v skladu z nacionalno in/ali regionalno zakonodajo in predpisi.
If you answer is no, please indicate ‘no penalty’. 
V primeru nikalnega odgovora navedite „Brez kazni”.
Farmer WZ was randomly selected for an on‐the‐spot cross‐compliance check of SMR 4 for the 2014 claim year. 
Kmet WZ je bil naključno izbran za pregled na kraju samem v zvezi s predpisano zahtevo ravnanja 4 za leto vložitve zahtevkov 2014.
The farmer inspected owns 964.35 ha and 145 cattle, for which he needs a manure storage capacity of 4 400 cubic meters (6 months storage). 
Kmet, pri katerem je bil izveden pregled, ima v lasti 964,35 ha in 145 glav goveda, za katerega potrebuje skladišče za gnoj z zmogljivostjo 4 400 m3 (6-mesečno skladiščenje).
The capacity found and calculated by the inspectors during the on‐the‐spot inspection was 10 % less than that required. 
Zmogljivost, ki so jo inšpektorji ugotovili in izračunali pri pregledu na kraju samem, je bila 10 % manjša od zahtevane.
If your answer is no, please indicate ‘no penalty’. 
V primeru nikalnega odgovora, navedite „Brez kazni”.
Reply of the 41 Commission Executive summary II When describing the cross‐compliance system it has to be made clear that for SMRs, these basic rules incorporated in cross‐compliance are anyhow already applicable in Member States due to the overlaying sectorial legislation. 
Odgovori 41 Komisije Povzetek II Pri opisovanju sistema navzkrižne skladnosti je treba pojasniti, da se za predpisane zahteve ravnanja ta osnovna pravila, ki so vključena v navzkrižno skladnost, v državah članicah že uporabljajo zaradi prekrivajoče se sektorske zakonodaje.
III Since 2005 the continuous process of reviewing and simplifying the cross‐compliance scope provided the following results: Control procedures were simplified during the period 2005‐2013 by introducing provisions on harmonisation of control rates, advance notice, timing and elements of on‐the‐spot checks and selection control sample. 
III Od leta 2005 so bili s stalnim postopkom pregledovanja in poenostavljanja področja uporabe navzkrižne skladnosti doseženi naslednji rezultati: Kontrolni postopki so bili poenostavljeni v obdobju 2005–2013 z uvedbo določb o uskladitvi stopenj kontrole, predhodnem obvestilu, časovni razporeditvi, elementih pregledov na kraju samem in izbiri vzorca za kontrolo.
Furthermore, with the last CAP reform, the number of SMRs has been reduced from 18 to 13 and the number of GAEC standards was reduced from 15 to 7. 
Poleg tega se je z zadnjo reformo skupne kmetijske politike število predpisanih zahtev ravnanja z 18 zmanjšalo na 13, število standardov za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje pa s 15 na sedem.
The obligations included in the scope of cross‐compliance were reviewed in light of the fact if they were controllable, directly attributable to farmers (and not to Member States) and if they were linked to agricultural activity. 
Obveznosti, vključene v področje uporabe navzkrižne skladnosti, so bile pregledane ob upoštevanju dejstva, ali jih je bilo mogoče kontrolirati, neposredno pripisati kmetom (in ne državam članicam) in ali so bile povezane s kmetijsko dejavnostjo.
The Commission considers that the scale of the effort already put into simplification makes it most unlikely that any further simplification can be achieved without undermining e.g. the environmental goals of cross‐compliance. 
Komisija meni, da zaradi obsega prizadevanj, ki so bila že vložena v poenostavitev, nadaljnja poenostavitev zelo verjetno ne bo mogoča, ne da bi ogrozila npr. okoljske cilje navzkrižne skladnosti.
IV It is the Commission's view that the performance indicators used for measuring the effectiveness of cross‐ compliance in meeting its objectives are the most appropriate on the basis of the available information. 
IV Po mnenju Komisije so na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij kazalniki uspešnosti, uporabljeni za merjenje učinkovitosti navzkrižne skladnosti pri doseganju njenih ciljev, najprimernejši.
The cross‐ compliance objectives are to contribute to the development of sustainable agriculture through awareness‐raising of farmers and making the CAP more compatible with the expectations of society. 
Cilja navzkrižne skladnosti sta prispevati k razvoju trajnostnega kmetijstva z ozaveščanjem kmetov in povečati združljivost skupne kmetijske politike s pričakovanji družbe.
In this respect cross‐ compliance is not the implementing tool for other policies, which have their own objectives. 
S tega vidika navzkrižna skladnost ni orodje za izvajanje drugih politik, ki imajo svoje cilje.
Analysing the reasons for infringements is done in the context of the implementation of the sectorial legislation. 
Analiza razlogov za kršitve se opravi v okviru izvajanja sektorske zakonodaje.
However cross‐compliance and the Farm Advisory System play a role in addressing the reasons for the infringements. 
Vendar imata navzkrižna skladnost in sistem kmetijskega svetovanja pomembno vlogo pri odpravi razlogov za kršitve.
VI Environmental objectives (e.g. maintenance of land and biodiversity) are pursued not only by greening payments and GAEC standards but also by environmental and climate measures under Pillar II as well as the environmental legislation. 
VI Okoljski cilji (npr. ohranjanje zemljišč in biotske raznovrstnosti) se ne poskušajo doseči le s plačili za zeleno komponento in standardi za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje, temveč tudi z okoljskimi in podnebnimi ukrepi v okviru drugega stebra in okoljske zakonodaje.
However, the nature, rationale and functioning of these various instruments are different and complementary. 
Vendar se narava, namen in delovanje teh različnih instrumentov razlikujejo in dopolnjujejo.
Their complementarity is illustrated by Figure 1 of SWD (2016) 218 final. 
Njihovo dopolnjevanje je prikazano na sliki 1 dokumenta SWD(2016) 218 final.
Both greening rules and GAEC are managed by the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) and this ensures the best use of resources. 
Pravila za zeleno komponento ter dobri kmetijski in okoljski pogoji se upravljajo z integriranim administrativnim in kontrolnim sistemom, kar zagotavlja najboljšo uporabo virov.
There are, however, reasons for the fact that GAECs and greening may not necessarily be checked together. 
Obstajajo pa razlogi za to, da se dobri kmetijski in okoljski pogoji ter zelena komponenta ne preverjajo nujno skupaj.
Since greening is a criterion for eligibility it is controlled ex‐ante by administrative checks and on‐the spot checks for 5 % of beneficiaries. 
Zelena komponenta je merilo za upravičenost, zato se preverja predhodno z upravnimi pregledi in pregledi na kraju samem pri 5 % upravičencev.
GAEC are checked under cross‐compliance which is managed differently than the eligibility requirements. 
Dobri kmetijski in okoljski pogoji se preverjajo v okviru navzkrižne skladnosti, ki se upravlja drugače kot zahteve za upravičenost.
Reply of the Commission 42 VII The SMRs stem from sectorial legislations and Member States may make use of their existing administration and control systems (Article 96 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013). 
Odgovori Komisije 42 VII Predpisane zahteve ravnanja izhajajo iz sektorskih zakonodaj in države članice lahko uporabijo svoje obstoječe upravne in kontrolne sisteme (člen 96 Uredbe (EU) št. 1306/2013).
Existing control systems can thus synergistically be used for the cross‐compliance control system. 
Obstoječi kontrolni sistemi se torej lahko sinergij-sko uporabijo za sistem kontrol za navzkrižno skladnost.
GAEC should not either entail significant costs for farmers since they are meant to be basic standards. 
Dobri kmetijski in okoljski pogoji ne bi smeli pomeniti precejšnjih stroškov za kmete, saj naj bi bili osnovni standardi.
Costs of their controls are born by the IACS which serve also other CAP instruments. 
Stroške njihovih kontrol nosi integrirani administrativni in kontrolni sistem, ki se uporablja tudi za druge instrumente skupne kmetijske politike.