natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to assess whether this result could have been achieved at a lower cost to the EU budget, the court examined whether: (a) the construction of the co-financed infrastructure had been carried out in an economical way; (b) the infrastructure works efficiently, that is to say their rate of use is satisfactory and the rate of non-invoiced water in the dependant water distribution network is acceptable; (c) whether the EU grant had been set at an appropriate level, taking into account that the co-financed projects generate revenue. 
Sodišče je pri ocenjevanju, ali bi se ti rezultati lahko dosegli z nižjimi stroški za proračun eu, preverilo: (a) ali je bila sofinancirana infrastruktura zgrajena gospodarno; (b) ali infrastruktura učinkovito deluje, tj. ali je njena stopnja uporabe zadovoljiva, stopnja nezaračunane vode v odvi-snem distribucijskem omrežju pa sprejemljiva; (c) ali so bile donacije eu določene na primerni stopnji ob upoštevanju dejstva, da sofinancirani projekti ustvarjajo prihodke. na GOsPOdarnOst VPlIVajO zamUde In PrekOračItVe strOškOV 50.
In several cases the contracting procedures were found not to comply with European rules for the awarding of contracts. however, when this occurred, the commission and the national control authorities did apply the appropriate corrections to the co-financed expenditure. 
Sodišče je v več primerih ugotovilo, da postopki za oddajo naročil niso bili v skladu z evropskimi pravili zanje. vendar so v takih primerih komisija in nacionalni nadzorni organi izvedli ustrezne popravke v zvezi s sofinanciranimi odhodki.
51. all projects experienced delays in their construction, ranging from a few months to more than three years. In most cases, delays caused by additional requests imposed by environmental impact assessments, difficulties in obtaining administrative permits, inaccurate estimates or calculations could have been partly avoided by better planning. 
51. pri vseh projektih je prišlo do zamud pri gradnji, ki so znašale od nekaj mesecev do več kot tri leta. v večini primerov so zamude povzročile dodatne zahteve zaradi presoj vplivov na okolje, težave pri pridobivanju upravnih dovoljenj, netočnim ocenam in izračunom pa bi se lahko z boljšim načrtovanjem delno izognili.
52. all projects also experienced cost increases which, in 20 % of the cases, were above 30 % of the initial price, with a maximum price increase of 80 % in one case. the most frequent reason for these cost overruns was poor planning, which resulted in delays leading to penalties to be paid by project promoters and price increases. 
52. pri vseh projektih je prišlo tudi do povišanja stroškov, ki je v 20 % primerov znašalo več kot 30 % prvotne cene, največje povišanje pa je v enem primeru znašalo 80 %. Najpogostejši razlog za prekoračitev stroškov je bilo slabo načrtovanje, zaradi česar je prišlo do zamud ter posledično do kazni, ki jih morajo plačati nosilci projekta, in višjih cen.
29 sEVEral ProjEcts oPEratE WIth lImItEd EffIcIEncy 53. two main efficiency parameters used in the audit were the rate of use of the infrastructure and the rate of non-invoiced water in the dependent distribution networks. (a) a low rate of use of the capacity means that a smaller, less expensive infrastructure might have provided the same level of service. (b) a high rate of non-invoiced water in the dependent distribution networks implies, in particular, losses. 
29 Več PrOjektOV ObratUje z OmejenO UčInkOVItOstjO 53. glavna parametra, uporabljena pri reviziji za preverjanje učinkovitosti, sta bila stopnja uporabe infrastrukture in stopnja nezaračunane vode v odvisnih distribucijskih omrežjih: (a) nizka stopnja uporabe zmogljivosti pomeni, da bi lahko manjša in cenejša infrastruktura zagotovila enako raven storitev; (b) visoka stopnja nezaračunane vode v odvisnih distribucijskih omrežjih pomeni predvsem izgube. če bi naložbe uspešno rešile težave z izgubami vode, bi bilo treba z novo infrastrukturo črpati, čistiti in prenašati manjše količine vode, zato bi bila nova infrastruktura lahko manjša, ali pa sploh ne bi bila potrebna.
54. at the time of the audit, 21 co-financed projects had been in operation for one to four years, three were starting to operate and five were physically completed but not in operation. 
54. v času revizije je 21 sofinanciranih projektov obratovalo od enega do štirih let, trije so začenjali obratovati, pet pa je bilo fizično zaključenih, vendar še niso obratovali. v tabeli 3 so navedene ocene projektov glede na glavna parametra učinkovitosti.
55. for the operational projects, there is a great variation in the rate at which the capacity of the co-financed infrastructures is used — between 100 % and 16 % — and in the level of non-invoiced water from the dependent distribution networks — from 13 % to 55 %. for the purpose of this analysis, projects with similar characteristics were placed in one of three categories (see Table 4). 
55. pri projektih, ki že obratujejo, obstajajo velike razlike v stopnji uporabe zmogljivosti sofinancirane infrastrukture – med 100 % in 16 % – in v količini nezaračunane vode iz odvisnih distribucijskih omrežij – od 13 % do 55 %. za to analizo so bili projekti s podobnimi značilnostmi razvrščeni v tri kategorije (glej tabelo 4).
31 tablE 4 Description Useful lifetime Possibility to implement in phases Type A Treatment and desalination plants 15–20 years Yes Type B Abstraction and transport infrastructure 30–50 years No Type C Distribution networks 30–50 years No ProjEct tyPoloGy for EffIcIEncy assEssmEnt Picture 7: Desalination plant (type A) Picture 9: Distribution network (type C) Picture 8: Water transport infrastructure (type B) special report no 9/2010 – Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 
9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito? 31 tabela 4 Opis Življenjska doba Možnost izvajanja v fazah Vrsta A čistilne naprave in obrati za razsoljevanje 15–20 let da Vrsta B infrastruktura za črpanje in prenos 30–50 let ne Vrsta C distribucijska omrežja 30–50 let ne Vrste PrOjektOV za OcenO UčInkOVItOstI Fotografija 7: obrat za razsoljevanje (vrsta A) Fotografija 9: distribucijsko omrežje (vrsta C) posebno poročilo št.
57. with regard to the seven type a projects or projects including type a elements that had been in operation for at least one year: (a) capacity: three projects operate at a good capacity, three at a medium level and one at a low level. since the lifetime of this type of infrastructure is relatively short, projects that are currently under-used are less likely to reach an acceptable level of use; this could have been avoided by implementing the desalination or treatment capacity in phases; (b) non-invoiced water: for two of the projects, the level of non-invoiced water is very high. 
Fotografija 8: infrastruktura za prenos vode (vrsta B) 57. podatki o sedmih projektih vrste A oziroma projektih, ki vsebujejo elemente projektov vrste A, in obratujejo že vsaj eno leto: (a) zmogljivost: trije projekti obratujejo z dobro zmogljivostjo, trije s srednjo, eden pa z nizko. ker je življenjska doba te vrste infrastrukture razmeroma kratka, je malo verjetno, da bodo projekti, ki trenutno niso dovolj izkoriščeni, dosegli sprejemljivo raven uporabe. temu bi se lahko izognili z izgradnjo zmogljivosti za razsoljevanje in čistilnih zmogljivosti v fazah; (b) nezaračunana voda: pri dveh projektih je količina nezaračunane vode zelo velika. v enem primeru znaša več kot 50 %, pri drugem pa poraba 550 litrov na prebivalca na dan kaže na to, da so izgube v omrežju verjetno zelo velike21, čeprav voda, ki je distribuirana porabnikom, ni odmerjena.
58. with regard to the 13 type b projects or projects containing type b elements that had been in operation for more than one year: (a) capacity: one project operates at maximum capacity, four projects operate at medium rate and eight at low rate. the reasons for this level of performance are the high estimates of future demand (see Table 2) and the lack of coordination among different authorities in charge of the water supply systems (see Box 8). there are also several cases where, despite signed agreements, the supply provided is not used or municipalities have withdrawn their commitment to use the water; (b) non-invoiced water: except in one case, efficiency is also severely affected by medium or low performance; in two other cases, no data were available. 
58. podatki o 13 projektih vrste b oziroma projektih, ki vsebujejo elemente projektov vrste b, in obratujejo več kot eno leto: (a) zmogljivost: en projekt obratuje s polno zmogljivostjo, štirje s srednjo, osem pa z nizko. razlog za tako raven delovanja so visoke ocene prihodnjega povpraševanja (glej tabelo 2) in pomanjkanje usklajenosti med različnimi organi, odgovornimi za sisteme oskrbe z vodo (glej okvir 8). obstaja tudi nekaj primerov, pri katerih se kljub podpisanim sporazumom zagotovljena oskrba ne uporablja ali pa so občine odstopile od obveze za uporabo vode; (b) nezaračunana voda: razen v enem primeru, srednje ali nizko delovanje močno vpliva tudi na učinkovitost; za dva druga primera podatki niso na voljo.
21 the international standard for domestic use is 120–150 m3 per household and year, which corresponds to 132–164 litres per inhabitant and day. 32 special report no 9/2010 – Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 
21 Mednarodnistandardza gospodinjsko porabo je 120–150 m3 na gospodinjstvo na leto, kar ustreza 132–164 litrom na prebivalca na dan. 32 posebno poročilo št. 9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito?
59. finally, for the five projects of type c or containing type c elements, the rate of use of the capacity is not assessed, because there is little scope for modifying the size of the pipes, due to technical reasons. as regards the rate of losses, the newly installed sections of the network achieve good results of about 10 %. however, the rate of non-invoiced water in the overall urban distribution network continues to be high or medium (from about 30 to 45 %) in three cases because only a limited part of the network has been renovated. 
59. za pet projektov vrste c oziroma projektov, ki vsebujejo elemente projektov vrste c, raven uporabe zmogljivosti ni ocenjena, ker pri teh projektih zaradi tehničnih razlogov ni veliko možnosti za spreminjanje velikosti cevi. v zvezi s količino izgub novo nameščeni odseki omrežja dosegajo dobre rezultate, in sicer okoli 10 %. vendar je skupna količina nezaračunane vode v omrežju za mestno distribucijo v treh primerih še vedno velika ali srednja (od približno 30 % do 45 %), ker je bil prenovljen samo omejen del omrežja.
ProcEss for sEttInG Grant ratEs shoWs sIGnIfIcant WEaknEssEs ... 
PrI POstOPkU dOlOčanja stOPenj dOnacIj se kažejO Precejšnje slabOstI, ...
60. the regulations governing the structural funds and the cohesion fund lay down the rules for setting community financial assistance. the EU grant cannot exceed specific ceilings22. within the limits of these ceilings, the level of community assistance in revenue-generating projects is determined on the basis of the financing gap method: the grant cannot exceed the difference between the discounted costs of the investment and the discounted net revenues of the project. this aims at ensuring that the project receives the resources needed to be implemented without unjustified over-financing. 
60. uredbi za strukturne sklade in kohezijski sklad določata pravila za določanje finančne pomoči Skupnosti. donacija eu ne sme preseči predpisanih zgornjih mej22. v okviru teh zgornjih meja je raven pomoči Skupnosti pri projektih, ki ustvarjajo prihodke, določena na osnovi metode finančne vrzeli: donacija ne sme preseči razlike med diskontiranimi stroški naložbe in diskontiranimi neto dohodki projekta. to pravilo zagotavlja, da projekt prejme sredstva, ki jih potrebuje za izvedbo, brez neupravičenega prevelikega financiranja.
22 article7ofregulation(Ec) no 1164/94 and article 29 of regulation (Ec) no 1260/1999. 
22 člen7uredbe(eS)št.1164/94 in člen 29 uredbe (eS) št.
33 box 8 ExamPlEs of loW ratE of usE of InfrastructurE duE to lack of coordInatIon bEtWEEn authorItIEs one regional authority promoted the renovation of the water main for a supply system delivering bulk water to several municipalities and co-financed by the Erdf. at the same time, the main municipality involved built a desalination plant, which was also co-financed by the Erdf. the water main was only used at a rate of 58 % in the first year of operation. a decision was taken to discontinue the desalination plant in May 2010, only four years after commissioning. 
1260/1999. 33 OkVIr 8 PrImera nIzke stOPnje UPOrabe InfrastrUktUre zaradI POmanjkanja UsklajenOstI med PrIstOjnImI OrGanI eden od regionalnih organov je bil nosilec projekta za prenovo vodovoda za sistem množične oskrbe z vodo več občin, ki ga je sofinanciral eSrr. Istočasno je največja od teh občin gradila obrat za razsoljevanje, ki ga je tudi sofinanciral eSrr. v prvem letu obratovanja je bil vodovod uporabljen le 58-odstotno.
In another Member state, a new bulk water supply system was promoted by a state-owned company and co-financed by the cf. however, the municipalities to be supplied by this system required their local infrastructures to be incorporated into the system. 
Samo štiri leta po začetku obratovanja je bila sprejeta odločitev o opustitvi obrata za razsoljevanje maja 2010. v drugi državi članici je bil nosilec projekta za nov sistem množične oskrbe z vodo državno podjetje, sofinanciral pa ga je kohezijski sklad. vendar so občine, ki naj bi se oskrbovale iz tega sistema, zahtevale, da se v sistem vključi njihova lokalna infrastruktura.
Moreover, in the end, the largest municipality refused to be supplied by the new system. as a result, the rate of use of the co-financed infrastructure is currently less than 25 %. special report no 9/2010 – Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 
Na koncu je največja občina odklonila oskrbo iz novega sistema. posledično je stopnja uporabe sofinancirane infrastrukture zdaj manj kot 25-odstotna. posebno poročilo št. 9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito?
61. for all cf projects and Erdf major projects examined, the grant applications presented to the commission by Member states (see paragraph 8) included a financial cost-benefit analysis (cba). all the applications requested assistance on the basis of the financing gap rate resulting from the cba23. the EU contribution varied from 40 % to 85 % of the total eligible costs of the project. 
61. vloge za donacije za vse pregledane projekte kohezijskega sklada in velike projekte eSrr, ki so jih države članice predložile komisiji (glej odstavek 8), so vsebovale finančno analizo stroškov in koristi. v vseh vlogah je bilo zaprošeno za pomoč na osnovi finančne vrzeli, ki je izhajala iz analize stroškov in koristi23. prispevek eu je znašal od 40 % do 85 % skupnih upravičenih stroškov projekta.
62. for the other Erdf projects examined (not submitted for individual grant approvals to the commission), only greece and portugal requested that a cba be provided by the project promoters as part of the documentation accompanying the applications. however, the co-financing rate was determined irrespective of the cbas. 
62. za ostale preučene projekte eSrr (ki niso bili predloženi komisiji za odobritev posameznih donacij), sta samo grčija in portugalska zahtevali, da nosilci projekta z vlogo za odobritev donacije predložijo tudi analizo stroškov in koristi. vendar je bila stopnja sofinanciranja določena brez upoštevanja te analize. v večini primerov so projekti prejeli najvišjo mogočo stopnjo donacije, ki je bila odobrena za ukrepe operativnega programa, v katerega je bil vključen projekt.
In most cases the projects were awarded the maximum co-financing rate granted to the operational programme measure in which they were included. the grant rate for these projects varied from 40 % to 80 % of the total eligible costs. 
Stopnja donacije za te projekte je znašala od 40 % do 80 % skupnih upravičenih stroškov. 63.
63. during the audit, the court found significant weaknesses in the financial analyses provided in support to Member states’ grant applications24. (a) In four of the 11 cbas provided to the commission, contrary to the rules of the financing gap method, depreciation had been included in the calculation of operational expenditure. as a result, in two cases, the grant rate was set at around twice the level it should have been, and in the two other cases, at about 50 % above that level. (b) In most of the cases where projects form part of a wider water supply system, no overview of the overall system was provided although this was necessary for the financial evaluation of the part presented for co-financing. 
Sodišče je pri reviziji ugotovilo precejšnje slabosti pri finančnih analizah, ki so bile predložene državam članicam kot podporna dokumentacija vlog za dodelitev donacije24: (a) v štirih od 11 analiz stroškov in koristi, ki so bile predložene komisiji, je bila v izračun odhodkov za poslovanje v nasprotju s pravili metode finančne vrzeli zajeta amortizacija. zato je bila v dveh primerih stopnja donacije določena približno dvakrat višje, kot bi morala biti, v drugih dveh primerih pa za 50 %; (b) v večini primerov, kjer so projekti del večjega sistema za oskrbo z vodo, ni bil predložen pregled nad celotnim sistemom, čeprav je bilo to potrebno za finančno ovrednotenje tistega dela, ki je bil predložen za sofinanciranje. poleg tega so bili stroški za poslovanje in prihodki, uporabljeni v analizi, izpeljani iz sorazmernega deleža večjega sistema oskrbe z vodo, v okviru katerega so se sofinancirani projekti izvajali. predpostavke so samo v enem primeru temeljile na dejanskih podatkih o sistemu oskrbe z vodo; (c) nekateri zneski, navedeni v analizi stroškov in koristi, so bili nerealni. v skoraj vseh primerih so bile na primer uporabljene stalne količine in cene. komisija poleg tega ni ocenila trdnosti ocen stroškov za poslovanje iz analiz stroškov in koristi.
23 Except in two projects submitted before 1999 for which the financing gap method was not applicable. 
23 razen pri dveh projektih, ki sta bila predložena pred letom 1999, za katera metode finančne vrzeli ni bilo treba uporabiti.
24 this situation has already been highlighted in a previous report of the court; see in particular paragraphs 21 to 34 of special report no 1/2008 concerning the procedures for the preliminary examination and evaluation of major investment projects for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods. 
24 to stanje je bilo izpostavljeno že v prejšnjem poročilu Sodišča, predvsem v odstavkih od 21 do 23 posebnega poročila št. 1/2008 o procesu obravnavanja vlog in vrednotenja v zvezi z velikimi naložbenimi projekti iz programskih obdobij 1994–1999 in 2000–2006.
34 special report no 9/2010 – Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 
34 posebno poročilo št. 9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito?
35 ... and doEs not takE suffIcIEnt account of thE abIlIty of thE ProjEcts to GEnEratE rEVEnuE 64. In the water supply sector, the revenues are tariffs and other charges paid by the various types of user. these revenues have an impact on the rate of community assistance as they contribute towards reducing the financing gap of a project. to assess whether a grant rate is set at a level which avoids over-financing and ensures the efficient use of EU resources, the ability of a project to generate revenues must be taken into account. 
35 ... zmOžnOst PrOjektOV za UstVarjanje PrIhOdkOV Pa nI UPOšteVana 64. v sektorju oskrbe z vodo so prihodki tarife in druge bremenitve, ki jih plačajo različne vrste uporabnikov. ti prihodki vplivajo na stopnjo pomoči Skupnosti, saj prispevajo k zmanjševanju finančne vrzeli projekta. pri ocenjevanju, ali je stopnja donacije primerno določena, tako da ne pride do previsokega sofinanciranja in da se zagotovi učinkovita poraba sredstev eu, je treba upoštevati zmožnost projekta za ustvarjanje prihodkov.
In 2000, the commission decided that the rate of assistance should be adjusted to encourage the introduction of charging systems covering the costs of operating, maintaining and replacing infrastructures as well as the costs of pollution abate-ment25. 
Leta 2000 je komisija odločila, da je treba stopnjo pomoči prilagoditi, da se spodbudi uvajanje sistemov zaračunavanja, ki bi pokrili stroške obratovanja, vzdrževanja in zamenjave infrastrukture ter stroške zmanjševanja onesnaževanja25.
67. the court’s review of the tariffs for water services also found that: (a) Member states tend to maximise EU financial assistance by keeping tariff levels low. In one case the tariffs had not been updated since the 1990s. there are cases where water tariffs were set by national authorities only after determining the maximum expected amount of EU financial assistance. Under these circumstances, the cbas submitted to the commission justify ex post the amount of the grant expected, instead of determining it as a result of the analysis made; (b) in relative terms, the tariffs set in the areas served by the projects audited account for less than 1 % of the household disposable income. the commission never questioned the potential to recover costs from users as presented in the applications, nor proposed any specific benchmark to assess the appropriateness of the water prices put forward. 
9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito? 67. pri pregledu tarif za storitve za rabo vode, je Sodišče ugotovilo naslednje: (a) države članice tarife pogosto ohranjajo na nizki ravni, da lahko zaprosijo za najvišjo mogočo finančno pomoč eu. v enem primeru tarife niso bile spremenjene od 1990-ih let. obstajajo primeri, v katerih so nacionalni organi tarife določili šele potem, ko so ugotovili, kakšen je najvišji mogoč znesek finančne pomoči eu, ki ga lahko pričakujejo. v teh okoliščinah so v analizah stroškov in koristi, ki so predložene komisiji, naknadno upravičeni pričakovani zneski donacij, namesto da bi ti izhajali iz analize; (b) tarife, določene na območjih, ki jih oskrbujejo revidirani projekti, v relativnem smislu znašajo manj kot 1 % razpoložljivih dohodkov gospodinjstev. komisija se ni nikoli spraševala o možnostih povračila stroškov od uporabnikov, kot so bile predstavljene v vlogah, niti ni predlagala specifičnih meril za ocenjevanje primernosti predlaganih cen vode. poleg tega kaže, da ni nobene povezave med deležem odhodkov gospodinjstev, porabljenih za plačilo storitev za rabo vode in stopnjo sofinanciranja. višje stopnje sofinanciranja so bile opažene tako na območjih, kjer so odhodki uporabnikov za vodo nižji v razmerju do njihovega dohodka, kot na območjih, kjer je to razmerje višje, in to brez posebne utemeljitve (glej diagram 1 in Prilogo III).
36 special report no 9/2010 – Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 
36 posebno poročilo št. 9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito?