natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Following this review as well as the findings and conclusions for 2010, the Court recommends that the Commission takes appropriate action to ensure that: (a) the use of ortho-photos becomes mandatory and that the LPIS is regularly updated on the basis of new ortho-photos (see paragraph 3.31); (b) the paying agencies remedy the weaknesses identified where the control systems and IACS databases were found to be deficient (see paragraphs 3.23 to 3.25); T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S (c) the on-the-spot inspections are of the quality necessary to identify the eligible area in a reliable manner (see paragraphs 3.38 and 3.39); (d) the quality of inspections is adequately checked and reported by the certification bodies (see paragraphs 3.46 and 3.47). 
SL 92 UradnilistEvropskeunije 10.11.2011 U G O T O V I T V E S O D I Š Č A 3.58 Sodišče po tem pregledu in po ugotovitvah in zaključkih za leto 2010 priporoča, naj Komisija sprejme ustrezne ukrepe, ki bodo zagotovili: (a) da bo uporaba ortografskih posnetkov postala obvezna in da se bo LPIS redno posodabljal na podlagi novih ortograf­ skih posnetkov (glej odstavek 3.31); (b) da bodo plačilne agencije odpravile slabosti, ugotovljene v primerih, ko se je za kontrolne sisteme in podatkovne zbirke IAKS pokazalo, da so pomanjkljivi (glej odstavke 3.23 do 3.25); (c) da bodo inšpekcijski pregledi na kraju samem dovolj kako­ vostni, da bodo omogočali zanesljivo določitev upravičene površine (glej odstavka 3.38 in 3.39); (d) da bodo certifikacijski organi ustrezno preverjali kakovost inšpekcijskih pregledov in poročali o njej (glej odstavka 3.46 in 3.47).
In the area of Rural Development, the Court recommends that the Commission and the Member States remedy the weaknesses identified, notably by improving the effectiveness of the checks carried out for non-IACS measures. 
3.59 Sodišče za področje razvoja podeželja priporoča, naj Komisija in države članice odpravijo ugotovljene slabosti, zlasti z izboljšanjem uspešnosti pregledov, ki se izvajajo za ne-IAKS ukrepe.
3.60. Finally,effectivemeasuresneedtobetakenbythe Commission and the Member States so that the issues identified in the policy areas of Environment, Fisheries, Health and Consumer Protection are resolved. (a) The issue of a regular update of the LPIS is taken into account in the newly introduced mandatory quality assessment of the LPIS. 
3.60 Komisija in države članice morajo sprejeti uspešne ukrepe, da se rešijo vprašanja, ugotovljena na področjih politik okolje, ribištvo ter zdravje in varstvo potrošnikov. O D G O VO R I KO M I S I J E 3.58 (a) Vprašanje rednega posodabljanja sistema LPIS je upoštevano v na novo uvedeni obvezni oceni kakovosti LPIS.
Making the use of ortho-photos mandatory is being considered in the context of the CAP reform post-2013. (b) The Commission works with the Member States to ensure a continuous improvement of the supervisory and control systems. 
Vprašanje obvezne uporabe ortografskih posnetkov je obravnavano v okviru reforme skupne kmetijske politike po letu 2013. (b) Komisija si skupaj z državami članicami prizadeva zagotavljati stalno izboljševanje nadzornih in kontrolnih sistemov.
Recommendations are made in this respect as part of the normal audits and action plans are developed and implemented by Member States with serious problems. 
Priporočila v zvezi s tem so predložena v okviru običajnih revizij, pri čemer države članice z resnimi težavami oblikujejo in izvajajo akcijske načrte.
The Commission considers that these plans have been successful. 
Komisija meni, da so ti načrti uspešni.
Moreover, as of claim year 2010, Member States are obliged to assess the quality of their LPIS. 
Poleg tega morajo države članice od leta vložitve zahtevkov 2010 ocenjevati kakovost svojih LPIS.
Whilst 2010 is the first year, this exercise has already been helpful for Member States as regards identification of areas requiring attention. 
Čeprav je leto 2010 prvo leto, je ta ukrep državam članicam že pomagal pri opredeljevanju področij, ki jim je treba nameniti pozornost.
Any remaining weaknesses are followed up through conformity clearance procedures to protect the EU’s financial interests. (c) Where the Commission finds such weaknesses, recommendations for rectification are made to the Member State and financial corrections are imposed through conformity clearance procedures to protect the EU’s financial interests. (d) The Commission considers the overall structure and reporting requirements with regards to the review of on-the-spot controls by the certification bodies to be appropriate (see also reply to points 3.46 and 3.47). 
Kakršne koli preostale slabosti se obravnavajo v okviru postopkov potrditve skladnosti, da se zaščitijo finančni interesi EU. (c) Če Komisija odkrije take slabosti, se državi članici predložijo priporočila za popravek, na podlagi postopkov potrditve sklad­ nosti pa se uvedejo finančni popravki za zaščito finančnih inte­ resov EU. (d) Komisija meni, da so zahteve glede strukture in poročanja v zvezi s pregledi kontrol na kraju samem, ki jih izvajajo certifikacijski organi, primerne (glej tudi odgovor na točki 3.46 in 3.47).
Consequently, no changes in the Commission’s guidelines to certification bodies are foreseen for financial year 2011. 
Zato v proračunskem letu 2011 niso predvidene nobene spremembe smernic Komisije za certifikacijske organe.
The Commission will, however, continue to monitor the quality of the work of the certification bodies. 
Vendar bo Komisija še naprej spremljala kakovost dela certifikacijskih organov.
The Commission considers that much progress has been made in improving the management and control systems for rural development and that this is borne out by the continuing downward trend in the error rates, in particular for the non-IACS measures where, according to Member States’ control statistics, the error rate for 2010 was far below the material level of 2 %. 
3.59 Komisija meni, da je bil v zvezi z izboljšanjem upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemov za razvoj podeželja dosežen velik napredek, kar potrjuje trend stalnega zmanjševanja stopenj napak, zlasti za ne-IAKS ukrepe, za katere je bila v skladu s kontrolnimi statističnimi podatki držav članic stopnja napake leta 2010 precej pod 2-odsto­ tnim pragom pomembnosti.
3.60. The Commission will examine the errors identified by the Court to determine whether they result from systemic weaknesses and where they do take measures to address them. 
3.60 Komisija bo proučila napake, ki jih je opredelilo Sodišče, da bi ugotovila, ali so povezane s sistemskimi slabostmi, pri čemer bo v tem primeru sprejela ukrepe za odpravo teh napak.
In addition, when proposing new expenditure programmes, the Commission will seek to simplify the rules while maintaining an appropriate level of control. 
Poleg tega si bo Komisija ob predložitvi novih programov za odhodke prizadevala za poenostavitev pravil in hkrati ohranila ustrezno raven kontrol.
The aim is to encourage potential beneficiaries to apply for EU financial support and to reduce errors and administrative burden for the beneficiaries, the Commission and the Member States. 
Cilj je spodbuditi morebitne upravičence k vložitvi zahtevka za finančno podporo EU ter zmanjšati napake in upravno obremenitev upravi­ čencev, Komisije in držav članic.
In shared management the Member States will have to ensure that national eligibility rules are clear, simple and effectively controlled to reduce error rates. 3.58. 
Pri deljenem upravljanju bodo morale države članice zagotoviti, da so nacionalna pravila za upra­ vičenost jasna in enostavna ter pod učinkovitim nadzorom, da se zmanjšajo stopnje napak.
(2) To improve insight into areas with different risk profiles within the policy group, the sample was split up into segments. 
(2) Zaradi boljšega pregleda področij z različnimi profili tveganja znotraj skupine politik je bil vzorec razdeljen v segmente.
(3) Numbers quoted in brackets represent the actual number of transactions. 
(3) Številke v oklepajih pomenijo dejansko število transakcij.
(4) The results of the examination of the transactions examined in the framework of the coordinated audits are included in the calculation of the error rate. 
(4) Rezultati pregleda transakcij, opravljenega pri koordiniranih revizijah, so zajeti v izračun stopnje napake.
ANNEX 3.1 RESULTS OF TRANSACTION TESTING FOR AGRICULTURE 2010 EAGF RD SANCO, ENV, MARE Total 2009 2008 2007 146 80 12 Advances 0000000 238 241 204 196 238 241 204 196 17% 0% (0) 2% 2% 3% 36% 
100 % (39) 100 % (40) 100 % (8) 100 % (87) 100 % 100 % 100 % (29) 52% (21) (1) 48% (10) 50 % (4) 100 % (4) 62% (54) 28% (15) 64% 68% 64% PRILOGA 3.1 REZULTATI PREIZKUŠANJA TRANSAKCIJ ZA KMETIJSTVO 2010 EKJS Razvoj podeželja SANCO, ENV, MARE Skupaj 2009 2008 2007 238 241 204 196 238 241 204 196 17% 0% (0) 2% 2% 3% 36%
EN 94 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 10.11.2011 ANNEX 3.2 RESULTS OF EXAMINATION OF SYSTEMS FOR AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES 3.2.1 Assessment of selected supervisory and control systems (IACS) — EAGF Member State (Paying agency) Scheme IACS related Expenditure (= national ceiling — Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009) (1 000 euro) Administrative procedures and controls to ensure correct payment including quality of data­ bases On-the-spot inspection methodology, selection, execution, quality control and reporting of individual results Implemen­ tation and control of GAEC/Cross-compliance Overall assessment Germany (Niedersachsen) SPS 5 770 254 Effective Partially effective C Partially effective b Effective Germany (Sachsen) SPS 5 770 254 Effective Effective Partially effective b Effective Spain (Castilla-La Mancha) SPS 4 858 043 Partially effective 1, 2, 3, 4 Partially effective A, B Effective Partially effective Spain (Extramadura) SPS 4 858 043 Partially effective 1, 4, 5, 6 Partially effective C Partially effective a Partially effective United Kingdom (Wales) SPS 3 985 895 Effective Partially effective B, D Partially effective b Effective The Netherlands SPS 853 090 Effective Partially effective D Partially effective a Effective N.B. The overall assessment cannot be any better than the assessment of the administrative procedures and controls. 1 Ineligible areas on permanent pasture covered with dense forest are not reliably identified. 
Ocena izbranih nadzornih in kontrolnih sistemov (IAKS) – EKJS Država članica (plačilna agencija) Shema Odhodki, povezani z IAKS (= nacionalni prag – Priloga VIII Uredbe (ES) št. 73/2009) (1 000 EUR) Administrativni postopki in kontrole za zagotovitev pravilnega plačila, vključno s kakovostjo podatkovnih zbirk Metodologija inšpekcijskih pregledov na kraju samem, izbor, izvedba, nadzor kako­ vosti in sporo­ čanje posa­ meznih rezul­ tatov Izvajanje in kontrola dobrih kmetij­ skih in okolj­ skih pogojev/ navzkrižne skladnosti Skupna ocena Nemčija (Spodnja Saška) SEP 5 770 254 uspešno delno uspešno C delno uspešno b uspešno Nemčija (Saška) SEP 5 770 254 uspešno uspešno delno uspešno b uspešno Španija (Kastilija in Manča) SEP 4 858 043 delno uspešno 1, 2, 3, 4 delno uspešno A, B uspešno delno uspešno Španija (Estremadura) SEP 4 858 043 delno uspešno 1, 4, 5, 6 delno uspešno C delno uspešno a delno uspešno Združeno kraljestvo (Wales) SEP 3 985 895 uspešno delno uspešno B, D delno uspešno b uspešno Nizozemska SEP 853 090 uspešno delno uspešno D delno uspešno a uspešno Opomba: Skupna ocena ne more biti boljša od ocene administrativnih postopkov in kontrol. 1 Neupravičenepovršinetrajnihpašnikov,pokritihzgostimgozdom,nisozanesljivougotovljene.
6 The obvious error concept is not correctly applied. 
5 LPIS po pregledih na kraju samem ni pravilno posodobljen.
A The allocation of the controlled population to risk based or random selection in the control statistics is made ex post. B Rapidfieldvisitsaretreatedason-the-spotcontrols. C Theeligibleareaforacropgroupisnotdeterminedcorrectly. 
A Uvrstitev kontrolirane populacije v izbor na podlagi tveganja ali naključni izbor se v kontrolnih statističnih podatkih izvaja naknadno.
D Insufficient quality of on-the-spot checks. a Insufficient national GAEC requirements for grassland and poor pasture. b Inadequate requirements for maintenance of land taken out of agricultural production. 
D Nezadostna kakovost pregledov na kraju samem. a Nezadostne nacionalne zahteve dobrih kmetijskih in okoljskih pogojev za travišča in pašnike slabe kakovosti. b Neustrezne zahteve za ohranjanje zemljišč, izvzetih iz kmetijske proizvodnje.
EN 10.11.2011 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 95 3.2.2 Assessment of selected supervisory and control systems — Rural development Member State (Paying agency) Administrative procedures and controls to ensure correct payment including quality of databases On-the-spot inspection methodology, selection, execution, quality control and reporting of individual results Implementation and control of GAEC/ Cross-compliance Overall assessment France Not effective 1, 2, 3 Partially effective A, B, C Partially effective c Not effective Germany (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) Effective Effective Partially effective b Effective Italy (Tuscany) Partially effective 2, 3 Partially effective A, B, C Partially effective a Partially effective Latvia Not effective 2, 3, 4 Effective Effective d Not effective Poland Partially effective 2, 3, 4 Effective B Partially effective b Partially effective Portugal Partially effective 3, 4 Partially effective B, C, D Partially effective a Partially effective Romania Partially effective 2, 3, 4 Partially effective 3, C Effective Partially effective UK (Scotland) Partially effective 1 Partially effective 1, C, D Partially effective 1, c, d Partially effective Czech Republic Partially effective 2, 3, 5 Partially effective C, E, a Partially effective a, c, e, E Partially effective 1 Payments before finalisation of compulsory controls. 
SL 10.11.2011 UradnilistEvropskeunije 95 3.2.2. Ocena izbranih nadzornih in kontrolnih sistemov – razvoj podeželja Država članica (plačilna agencija) Administrativni postopki in kontrole za zagotovitev pravilnega plačila, vključno s kako­ vostjo podatkovnih zbirk Metodologija inšpekcij­ skih pregledov na kraju samem, izbor, izvedba, nadzor kakovosti in sporočanje posameznih rezultatov Izvajanje in kontrola dobrih kmetijskih in okoljskih pogojev/ navzkrižne skladnosti Skupna ocena Francija neuspešno 1, 2, 3 delno uspešno A, B, C delno uspešno c neuspešno Nemčija (Mecklenburg-Pred­ pomerjansko) uspešno uspešno delno uspešno b uspešno Italija (Toskana) delno uspešno 2, 3 delno uspešno A, B, C delno uspešno a delno uspešno Latvija neuspešno 2, 3, 4 uspešno uspešno d neuspešno Poljska delno uspešno 2, 3, 4 uspešno B delno uspešno b delno uspešno Portugalska delno uspešno 3, 4 delno uspešno B, C, D delno uspešno a delno uspešno Romunija delno uspešno 2, 3, 4 delno uspešno 3, C uspešno delno uspešno Združeno kraljestvo (Škotska) delno uspešno 1 delno uspešno 1, C, D delno uspešno 1, c, d delno uspešno Češka delno uspešno 2, 3, 5 delno uspešno C, E, a delno uspešno a, c, e, E delno uspešno 1 Plačila pred končanjem obveznih kontrol.
2 Incorrect rules, calculations and payments (overpayment, tolerance rules, non-eligible expenditure, reductions). 
2 Nepravilna pravila, izračuni in plačila (preplačila, tolerančna pravila, neupravičeni odhodki, znižanja).
3 Lack of evidence, deficiencies and ineffective checks related to eligibility conditions and commitments. 
3 Pomanjkanje dokazov, pomanjkljivosti in neuspešni pregledi, povezani s pogoji in obveznostmi za upravičenost.
4 Absence of suitable system to evaluate the reasonableness of the costs proposed. 
4 Ni ustreznega sistema za vrednotenje razumnosti predlaganih stroškov.
A No evaluation of the on-the-spot control results and failure to increase the sample of beneficiaries to be checked. 
A Ni vrednotenja rezultatov kontrol na kraju samem in ni povečanja vzorca upravičencev, ki jih je treba preveriti.
B Deficiencies in selection methodology and non-respect of the regulatory minimum rate for on-the-spot controls. 
B Pomanjkljivosti izbirne metodologije in neupoštevanje predpisane najnižje stopnje kontrol na kraju samem.
C Weaknesses related to the quality of the on-the-spot controls carried out and of the ex-post checks. 
C Slabosti, povezane s kakovostjo izvedenih kontrol na kraju samem in naknadnih pregledov.
D Delays and inconsistencies concerning the statistics and the checks results communicated to Commission. 
D Zamude in nedoslednosti pri statističnih podatkih in rezultatih pregledov, sporočenih Komisiji.
E SanctionrulesnotcompliantwithEUlegislation. a Checkscarriedoutwithdelaysandnotspreadovertheyear. b Non-compliance with the identification and registration of animals and non-respect of the compulsory notifications. c Lack of evaluation of non-compliances found and inconsistencies in the control reports examined. d Compulsory rate of checks for SMR7 not achieved and discrepancies in statistics on cross-compliance checks. e Insufficient national GAEC standards. 
E PravilazakazninisoskladnazzakonodajoEU. a Pregledi so izvedeni z zamudo in niso porazdeljeni po celem letu. b Neskladnost pri identifikaciji in registraciji živali ter neupoštevanje obveznih obvestil. c Pomanjkanjevrednotenjaugotovljenihneskladnostiinnedoslednostivpregledanihkontrolnihporočilih. d Obvezna stopnja pregledov za predpisane zahteve ravnanja 7 ni dosežena in v statističnih podatkih o navzkrižnih preverjanjih so neskladnosti. e Nezadostni nacionalni standardi za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje.
Overall assessment of supervisory and control systems Overall assessment 2010 2009 2008 2007 Partially effective Partially effective Partially effective Partially effective 
Skupna ocena nadzornih in kontrolnih sistemov Skupna ocena 2010 2009 2008 2007 delno uspešno delno uspešno delno uspešno delno uspešno
EN 96 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 10.11.2011 Main DGs concerned Nature of declaration given by Director-General (*) Reservations given Court observations Overall assessment of reliability DG AGRI with reservations B DG CLIMA with reservation Reservation on reputational grounds related to a significant security breach identified in the national registries of the EU Emissions Trading System. 
SL 96 UradnilistEvropskeunije 10.11.2011 Glavni zadevni generalni direktorati Vrsta izjave generalnega direktorja (*) Pridržki Opažanja Sodišča Skupna ocena zanesljivosti GD AGRI s pridržki B GD CLIMA s pridržkom Pridržek v zvezi z ugledom, povezan z resno kršitvijo varnosti, ugotovljeno v nacionalnih registrih za sistem EU za trgovanje z emisijami.
A DG ENV without reservations DG ENV did not maintain its reservation although the error rate of ex-post audits, which caused the reservation in 2009, increased from 5,97 % to 7,14 %. 
A GD ENV brez pridržkov GD ENV ni ohranil svojega pridržka, čeprav se je stopnja napake pri naknadnih revizijah, ki je bila vzrok pridržka za leto 2009, povečala s 5,97 % na 7,14 %.
DG ENV justified this with B assumptions on the effect of the sampling method on the error rate which could not be proven. 
GD ENV je to utemeljil z B domnevami o učinku metode vzorčenja na stopnjo napake, ki jih ni bilo mogoče dokazati.
Serious deficiencies in the IACS in Bulgaria, Portugal and Romania The maintenance of the reservations is consistent with the Court's finding in these Member States. (a) the Commission’s methodology to calculate the error rate was not fully transparent and was based on a number of choices. 
Resne pomanjkljivosti v IAKS v Bolgariji, na Portugalskem in v Romuniji. Ohranitev pridržkov se ujema z ugotovitvami Sodišča v teh državah članicah. (a) metodologija, ki jo je Komisija uporabila za izračun stopnje napake, ni bila v celoti pregledna in je temeljila na številnih izbirah.
Different choices could have been made which would have led to an error rate above the 2 % threshold; (b) the data used to calculate the error rate showed shortcomings and was in some cases not reliable. 
Možnih bi bilo več drugačnih izbir, ki bi privedle do stopnje napake nad pragom 2 %; (b) so se pri podatkih, uporabljenih za izračun stopnje napake, pokazale pomanjkljivosti in v nekaterih primerih niso bili zanesljivi.
In particular the quality of the Member States’ control statistics, which formed the basis for calculating the error rate, was found to be of insufficient quality. 
Nezadostna kakovost je bila ugotovljena zlasti za kontrolne statistične podatke držav članic, ki so bili osnova za izračun stopnje napake.
ANNEX 3.3 RESULTS OF REVIEW OF COMMISSION MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES The declaration of assurance in DG AGRI's 2009 AAR contained a reservation on the expenditure for rural development measures under Axis 2 (improving the environment and the countryside) of the 2007-2013 programming period. 
PRILOGA 3.3 REZULTATI PREGLEDA POSLOVODSKIH PREDSTAVITEV KOMISIJE ZA KMETIJSTVO IN NARAVNE VIRE Izjava o zanesljivosti v letnem poročilu o dejavnostih GD AGRI za leto 2009 je vsebovala pridržek o odhodkih za ukrepe za razvoj podeželja iz osi 2 (izboljšanje okolja in pokrajine) v programskem obdobju 2007–2013.
In the 2010 AAR, DG AGRI did not carry over this reservation. 
GD AGRI tega pridržka ni prenesel v svoje poročilo o dejavnostih za leto 2010.
The Court found that this reservation should have been maintained because: 2010 2009 B 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da bi bilo treba pridržek ohraniti, ker: 2010 2009 B
EN 10.11.2011 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 97 Main DGs concerned Nature of declaration given by Director-General (*) Reservations given Court observations Overall assessment of reliability DG MARE with reservations Management and control systems for the FIFG Operational Programmes in Germany Objective 1. DG MARE dropped its reservation for UK — Wales and Valleys although the UK authorities did not accept the correction entirely. B DG SANCO without reservations Although audits of the Court and of IAC revealed significant weaknesses, DG SANCO did B not issue a reservation. (*) By reference to the Declaration of Assurance of the Director-General, he/she has reasonable assurance that the control procedures put in place give the necessary guarantees concerning the regularity of transactions. 
SL 10.11.2011 UradnilistEvropskeunije 97 Glavni zadevni generalni direktorati Vrsta izjave generalnega direktorja (*) Pridržki Opažanja Sodišča Skupna ocena zanesljivosti GD MARE s pridržki Upravljavski in kontrolni sistemi za GD MARE je umaknil svoj pridržek za Združeno kraljestvo - Wales and Valleys, čeprav operativne programe FIUR v Nemčiji, organi Združenega kraljestva popravka niso sprejeli v celoti. B cilj 1. brez pridržkov GD SANCO ni izdal pridržka, čeprav so revizije Sodišča in oddelka za notranjo revizijo B pokazale velike slabosti. GD SANCO (*) Izjava generalnega direktorja o zanesljivosti pomeni, da ima razumno zagotovilo, da vzpostavljeni kontrolni postopki dajejo potrebna jamstva o pravilnosti transakcij.
EN 98 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 10.11.2011 Year Court Recommendation Progress made Commission reply Court analysis 2008 and 2009 The Court recommends that the systems weak­ nesses identified are resolved. 
SL 98 UradnilistEvropskeunije 10.11.2011 Leto Priporočilo Sodišča Doseženi napredek Odgovor Komisije Analiza Sodišča 2008 in 2009 Sodišče priporoča, naj se odpravijo ugotovljene slabosti sistemov.