natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Weaknesses found in the selection of NPI projects (a) Selection of ineligible investments Denmark The preliminary (i.e. feasibility) studies for wetland projects are treated as individual NPIs, follow individual approval procedures and are economically independent from any investment that might take place at a later stage. 
Slabosti, odkrite pri izbiri projektov neproduktivnih naložb (a) Izbira neupravičenih naložb Danska Predhodne študije (študije izvedljivosti) projektov mokrišč se obravnavajo kot posamezne neproduktivne naložbe v okviru posameznih postopkov odobritve ter so ekonomsko neodvisne od naložb, ki bi lahko bile izvedene na poznejši stopnji.
However, Article 55 of Regulation 1974/20067 stipulates that a general cost of an investment operation which is eligible for co-financing can only be considered as such in so far as an actual investment operation exists. 
Vendar pa je v členu 55 Uredbe (ES) št. 1974/20067 določeno, da se splošni stroški naložbene operacije, ki je upravičena do sofinanciranja, lahko za take štejejo le, če naložbena operacija dejansko obstaja.
The Court considers that this requirement protects value for money principles, since it prevents EU money from being spent on actions which do not contribute to the objectives of the support scheme. 
Sodišče meni, da ta zahteva ščiti načela stroškovne učinkovitosti, saj preprečuje porabo sredstev EU za dejavnosti, ki ne prispevajo k doseganju ciljev sheme podpore.
This is the case for feasibility studies that do not result in concrete investments. 
To velja za študije izvedljivosti, ki ne vodijo v dejanske naložbe.
In this Member State, less than half of the financed preliminary studies were eventually followed by separate applications for actual investments in wetlands. 
V tej državi članici so manj kot polovici financiranih predhodnih študij na koncu sledile ločene vloge za dejanske naložbe v mokrišča.
Furthermore, in several cases, feasibility studies with a positive conclusion did not lead to concrete projects being implemented. 
V več primerih tudi študije izvedljivosti s pozitivnim zaključkom niso privedle do izvedbe konkretnih projektov.
Italy (Puglia) The national authorities have defined that only farm holders that are registered in the farms register of the Chamber of Commerce can have access to NPI support. 
Italija (Apulija) Nacionalni organi so določili, da imajo lahko dostop do podpore za neproduktivne naložbe le imetniki kmetij, ki so evidentirani v register kmetij gospodarske zbornice.
The Court found that three out of the six beneficiaries visited on the spot did not comply with this requirement and as such should not have accessed NPI support. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da trije od šestih upravičencev, obiskanih na kraju samem, te zahteve niso izpolnjevali, zato ne bi smeli imeti dostopa do podpore za neproduktivne naložbe.
7 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 
1974/2006 z dne 15. decembra 2006 o podrobnih pravilih glede uporabe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) (UL L 368, 23.12.2006, str.
Box 3 Observations 19 (b) Project selection insufficiently transparent United Kingdom (England) The national authorities identify holdings that could potentially be supported. 
Okvir 3 Opažanja 19 (b) Izbira projektov ni bila dovolj pregledna Združeno kraljestvo (Anglija) Nacionalni organi ugotovijo, katera gospodarstva bi potencialno lahko dobila podporo.
To do so, they use predefined lists of holdings prioritised according to their potential to deliver environmental outcomes followed by a negotiation procedure between the national authorities and the potential beneficiaries. 
To naredijo tako, da najprej uporabijo vnaprej določene sezname gospodarstev, prednostno razvrščenih glede na njihov potencial za doseganje okoljskih izidov. Temu sledi postopek pogajanj med nacionalnimi organi in potencialnimi upravičenci.
However, information on the basis for the prioritisation and assessment of the merits of the application was not available. 
Vendar pa informacije o podlagi za prednostno razvrščanje in ocenjevanje prednosti vlog niso bile na voljo.
In addition, the scheme documentation suggests that the inclusion of additional land management proposals is at the discretion of national officials. 
Poleg tega je iz dokumentacije sheme razvidno, da je vključitev dodatnih predlogov upravljanja zemljišč v pristojnosti nacionalnih uradnikov.
Denmark The aid applications relating to NPIs on collective plantations are submitted to the Managing Authorities almost exclusively by a national association of landowners and tenants. 
Danska Vloge za pridobitev pomoči, ki se nanašajo na neproduktivne naložbe na kolektivnih nasadih, organom upravljanja skoraj izključno posreduje nacionalno združenje lastnikov in najemnikov zemljišč.
This national association decides, based on its own criteria, which local association will participate in the projects submitted, and ultimately on which projects are supported. 
Nacionalno združenje se na podlagi lastnih meril odloči, katero lokalno združenje bo sodelovalo v predloženih projektih in posledično o tem, kateri projekti bodo prejeli podporo.
In addition, the national association participates in the advisory committee that determines the relative priority of the applications that were submitted. 
Poleg tega nacionalno združenje sodeluje v svetovalnem odboru, ki določa relativno prednostno razvrstitev vlog, ki so bile predložene.
In the Court’s view, this constitutes a potential conflict of interest. (c) Inappropriate verification of crucial selection criteria Italy (Puglia) In the 2009 call for proposals concerning NPI support for the restoration of dry-stone walls, 602 of 3 887 submitted applications were approved, entailing total public expenditure of 42.7 million euros. 
Po mnenju Sodišča to pomeni potencialno navzkrižje interesov. (c) Neustrezno preverjanje ključnih izbirnih meril Italija (Apulija) V okviru razpisa za zbiranje predlogov iz leta 2009 v zvezi s podporo za neproduktivne naložbe za obnovo suhih zidov sta bili od predloženih 3 887 vlog odobreni 602 vlogi, kar je pomenilo skupne javne odhodke v višini 42,7 milijona EUR.
The prioritisation criteria awarded a maximum of seven points. 
Na podlagi meril za prednostno razvrščanje je bilo dodeljenih največ sedem točk.
All applications with less than six points were excluded. 
Vse vloge z manj kot šestimi točkami so bile izključene.
Among the decisive prioritisation criterion was the classification of the holding as having high environmental and landscape value if it had olive groves. 
Eno od odločilnih meril za prednostno razvrščanje je bila razvrstitev gospodarstva kot gospodarstva z visoko okoljsko in krajinsko vrednostjo, če je imelo oljčne nasade.
Applicants fulfilling this criterion would receive two points, which was decisive for not being excluded. 
Kandidati, ki so izpolnjevali to merilo, so dobili dve točki, kar je bilo odločilno za to, da niso bili izključeni.
The national authorities did not verify compliance with this specific criterion independently. 
Nacionalni organi niso neodvisno preverjali izpolnjevanja tega posebnega merila.
This task was entrusted to the producer associations, who had to certify that their affiliated members fulfilled the criterion. 
Naloga je bila zaupana združenjem proizvajalcev, ki so morali preveriti, ali njihovi pridruženi člani to merilo izpolnjujejo.
Observations 20 There was a lack of relevant information to show what has been achieved by EU support to NPIs at EU and Member State levels ... 
Opažanja 20 Ustreznih informacij o tem, kaj je bilo s podporo EU za neproduktivne naložbe doseženo na ravni EU in na ravni držav članic, ni bilo dovolj ...
25 A key tool in ensuring that EAFRD support to NPIs is well spent is monitoring and evaluation. 
25 Ključno orodje za zagotavljanje, da je podpora iz EKSRP za neproduktivne naložbe dobro porabljena, je spremljanje in vrednotenje.
For the 2007-2013 period the rural development regulation introduced a ‘Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework’ (CMEF). 
Za obdobje 2007–2013 je bil z uredbo o razvoju podeželja uveden „skupni okvir spremljanja in vrednotenja“ (CMEF).
The CMEF used common indicators intended to record progress towards rural development objectives in a way that allows each of the RDPs to be compared and the data to be aggregated. 
V okviru tega so se uporabljali skupni kazalniki, ki naj bi napredek pri doseganju ciljev na področju razvoja podeželja prikazovali tako, da bi bilo mogoče primerjati posamezne programe razvoja podeželja in združevati podatke.
As common indicators cannot fully capture all the effects of individual support schemes, Member States can also set a limited number of additional indicators. 
Ker skupni kazalniki ne morejo v celoti zajeti vseh učinkov posameznih shem podpore, lahko države članice določijo še omejeno število dodatnih kazalnikov.
26 The Court found several weaknesses in monitoring and evaluation that lead to an overall lack of relevant information showing the results achieved by NPIs, notably in the extent to which NPIs have contributed towards the achievement of agri-environment objectives linked to the sustainable use of agricultural land. 
26 Sodišče je ugotovilo več slabosti pri spremljanju in vrednotenju, ki so privedle do splošnega pomanjkanja ustreznih informacij o rezultatih, doseženih z neproduktivnimi naložbami, zlasti o tem, v kolikšnem obsegu so neproduktivne naložbe prispevale k doseganju kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev, povezanih s trajnostno rabo kmetijskih zemljišč.
27 Firstly, the Member States did not define additional baseline indicators in relation to NPI support during the programming phase. 
27 Prvič, države članice v fazi načrtovanja programov niso opredelile dodatnih temeljnih kazalnikov v zvezi s podporo za neproduktivne naložbe.
The use of additional baseline indicators would make it possible to establish a context in which the allocation of resources for supporting NPI becomes clearer and allows a comparison of the contribution of NPI support at the end of the period. 
Njihova uporaba bi omogočila vzpostavitev okvira, v katerem bi postalo dodeljevanje virov za podporo za neproduktivne naložbe jasnejše in bi omogočalo primerjavo prispevka podpore za neproduktivne naložbe na koncu obdobja.
Box 4 provides an example of how baseline indicators could facilitate the measurement of results achieved by NPI support. 
V okviru 4 je primer, kako bi lahko temeljni kazalniki olajšali merjenje rezultatov, doseženih s podporo za neproduktivne naložbe.
Examples of possible baseline indicators Italy (Puglia) and Portugal (Mainland) The restoration of dry-stone walls was the single most important type of NPI defined in the RDP (97 % of total public support in Puglia, 89 % in Portugal). 
Primeri možnih temeljnih kazalnikov Italija (Apulija) in Portugalska (celina) Obnova suhih zidov je bila daleč najpomembnejša vrsta neproduktivnih naložb, ki je bila opredeljena v programu razvoja podeželja (97 % skupne javne podpore v Apuliji, 89 % na Portugalskem).
However, the national authorities have not defined a baseline situation regarding the total quantity of dry-stone wall in the areas subject to this type of NPI support, the quantity of dry-stone wall that was identified as requiring maintenance at the beginning of the programming period, or the targeted quantities of dry-stone wall to be recovered at the end of the programming period; this would have provided a clearer picture of the significance and effectiveness of the resources allocated to this type of NPI. 
Vendar nacionalni organi niso opredelili izhodiščnega stanja v zvezi s skupno količino suhih zidov na območjih, na katerih se ta vrsta podpore za neproduktivne naložbe uporablja, količine suhih zidov, ki so bili na začetku programskega obdobja opredeljeni kot suhi zidovi, potrebni vzdrževanja, niti ciljnih količin suhih zidov, ki jih je treba doseči ob koncu programskega obdobja. To bi dalo jasnejšo sliko o pomenu in uspešnosti virov, dodeljenih za to vrsto neproduktivnih naložb.
Observations 21 28 Secondly, the CMEF common indicators measure input and output data, such as the amount of public expenditure, the number of holdings receiving support, and the total investment volume, but are particularly inadequate in their attempts to assess the impact of investment measures such as NPI support. 
Opažanja 21 28 Drugič, skupni kazalniki iz okvira CMEF merijo vhodne in izhodne podatke, kot so znesek javnih odhodkov, število gospodarstev, ki prejemajo podporo, in skupni obseg naložb, vendar so še posebej neprimerni za ocenjevanje učinka naložbenih ukrepov, kot je podpora za neproduktivne naložbe.
Likewise, the common result indicator obtained for NPI support takes into account the area of land (measured in number of hectares) under successful land management schemes and therefore, is meaningless to express the link or the contribution of an investment measure. 
Podobno je v skupnem kazalniku rezultatov, pridobljenem za podporo za neproduktivne naložbe, upoštevana površina zemljišč (izražena v številu hektarjev) v okviru sheme uspešnega upravljanja zemljišč, zato za izražanje povezave ali prispevka naložbenega ukrepa nima pomena.
29 Despite the inadequacy of the common result indicators, which was explicitly acknowledged in the RDPs of Portugal (Mainland) and the UK (England), the audited Member States have not defined additional indicators to capture this important information as regards NPI support. 
29 Čeprav skupni kazalniki rezultatov niso ustrezni, kar je bilo izrecno potrjeno v programih razvoja podeželja Portugalske (celina) in Združenega kraljestva (Anglija), revidirane države članice niso opredelile dodatnih kazalnikov, ki bi obravnavali te pomembne informacije glede podpore za neproduktivne naložbe.
30 Another source which can produce relevant information on results is an evaluation. 
30 Drugi vir, ki lahko zagotovi ustrezne informacije o rezultatih, je vrednotenje.
In contrast to the regular examination performed by monitoring, evaluation is a periodic collection and analysis of evidence, including the information produced for monitoring. 
Za razliko od rednih pregledov, ki se izvajajo v okviru spremljanja, je vrednotenje redno zbiranje in analiza dokazov, vključno z informacijami, pridobljenimi za spremljanje.
At the time of the audit, only the mid-term evaluations carried out towards the middle of the period were available. 
V času revizije so bila na voljo le vmesna vrednotenja, izvedena okoli sredine obdobja.
The review of these evaluation reports showed that they did not provide relevant information on the results achieved by NPI support. 
Pregled teh poročil o vrednotenju je pokazal, da ta niso zagotovila ustreznih informacij o rezultatih, doseženih s podporo za neproduktivne naložbe.
This was mainly due to the combination of late implementation and the lack of relevant monitoring information. 
To je bilo predvsem posledica zamud pri izvajanju in hkrati pomanjkanja ustreznih podatkov o spremljanju.
In fact, the Commission’s review of the individual MTE reports mentioned the low availability and completeness of monitoring data. 
Dejansko sta bila v pregledu posameznih poročil o vmesnih vrednotenjih, ki ga je opravila Komisija, navedena slaba razpoložljivost in nepopolnost podatkov o spremljanju.
Box 5 provides examples of the very limited information concerning the performance of NPI support. 
V okviru 5 so opisani primeri zelo omejenih informacij o smotrnosti poslovanja pri podpori za neproduktivne naložbe.
Examples of references made to NPI support in MTE reports In the case of Portugal (Mainland), the MTE did not contain any reference to NPIs due to the late implementation of the measure. 
Primeri omemb podpore za neproduktivne naložbe v poročilih o vmesnem vrednotenju V primeru Portugalske (celina) v poročilih o vmesnem vrednotenju ni bilo omemb neproduktivnih naložb zaradi zamud pri izvajanju ukrepa.
Regarding Italy (Puglia), the MTE provided information on the outcome of NPI support and its correlation to environmental benefits. 
V Italiji (Apulija) so bile v okviru vmesnih vrednotenj pridobljene informacije o izidu podpore za neproduktivne naložbe in njeni povezavi z okoljskimi koristmi.
However, at the time of the MTE, no expenditure had been paid, which suggests that the report repeated the intended environmental benefits that were expressed in the RDP and ex ante evaluation report. 
Vendar pa v času vmesnega vrednotenja niso bili izplačani nobenih odhodki, kar bi lahko pomenilo, da so bile v poročilih ponovno navedene zastavljene okoljske koristi, ki so bile navedene že v programu razvoja podeželja in poročilu o predhodnem vrednotenju.
As for Denmark, the MTE referred that the national measures implementing NPI support lacked in terms of definition of operational objectives. 
Na Danskem je bilo v poročilu o vmesnem vrednotenju navedeno, da je bila opredelitev operativnih ciljev v nacionalnih ukrepih za izvajanje podpore za neproduktivne naložbe pomanjkljiva.
Concerning the United Kingdom (England), the MTE included a specific recommendation regarding the need to define new indicators to allow the assessment of the effectiveness and relevance of NPI support. 
V Združenem kraljestvu (Anglija) je poročilo o vmesnem vrednotenju vključevalo posebno priporočilo v zvezi s potrebo po opredelitvi novih kazalnikov, ki bi omogočali oceno uspešnosti in ustreznosti podpore za neproduktivne naložbe.
Observations 22 31 The issues described above prevented the national authorities from being able to draw meaningful conclusions on the success or the effectiveness of NPI support in contributing to the achievement of other environmental measures or objectives. 
Opažanja 22 31 Zaradi zgoraj opisanih težav nacionalni organi niso mogli priti do smiselnih zaključkov o uspehu ali uspešnosti podpore za neproduktivne naložbe pri prispevanju k dosegi drugih okoljskih ukrepov ali ciljev.
This could lead, for instance, the Member States who restricted NPI support to beneficiaries of other rural development measures, such as agri-environment payments, to bundle the assessment of both measures, according to a wishful rationale in which the performance of the latter in a certain direction would imply that NPIs must have been performing in the same way, despite the lack of objective data regarding the outcome of NPI support (see Box 6). 
Zaradi tega bi lahko na primer države članice, ki so omejile podporo za neproduktivne naložbe na upravičence do drugih ukrepov za razvoj podeželja, kot so kmetijsko-okoljska plačila, povezale oceno obeh ukrepov skladno z iluzorno utemeljitvijo, da smotrnost poslovanja slednjih v določeni smeri pomeni, da je smotrnost poslovanja neproduktivnih naložb enaka, kljub pomanjkanju objektivnih podatkov o izidih podpore za neproduktivne naložbe (glej okvir 6).
Example of a bundled assessment In the case of UK (England), the national authorities stated that, when assessing how NPI support had performed, they considered the performance of two measures (214 agri-environment/216-NPI) together. 
Primer povezane ocene V Združenem kraljestvu (Anglija) so nacionalni organi navedli, da so pri ocenjevanju smotrnosti poslovanja pri podpori za neproduktivne naložbe obravnavali smotrnost poslovanja pri obeh ukrepih (ukrepu 214 – „kmetijsko-okoljska plačila“ in ukrepu 216 – „neproduktivne naložbe“) skupaj.
However, the demonstration of the way in which NPI aid contributed to the longer-term benefit of agri-environment commitments is affected by the lack of specific objectives and indicators for NPIs. ... nevertheless, the Court found indications that 71 % of the audited NPIs contributed to objectives linked to the sustainable use of agricultural land 32 As indicated in paragraph 13 the Court examined a sample of 28 NPI projects. 
Vendar je bil prikaz, kako je pomoč za neproduktivne naložbe prispevala k dolgoročnejšim koristim kmetijsko-okoljskih zavez, zaradi pomanjkanja posebnih ciljev in kazalnikov za neproduktivne naložbe okrnjen. ... Sodišče pa je kljub temu ugotovilo, da je 71 % revidiranih neproduktivnih naložb prispevalo k doseganju ciljev, povezanih s trajnostno rabo kmetijskih zemljišč 32 Kot je navedeno v odstavku 13, je Sodišče preučilo vzorec 28 projektov neproduktivnih naložb.
In order to assess whether these projects had contributed effectively to the sustainable use of agricultural land, the Court assessed the following. — Whether the projects were eligible for EAFRD support. — Whether they addressed an environmental need recognised by the Member States in their RDP and pursued objectives linked to the sustainable use for agricultural land. — Whether related investments were carried out as planned and were sustained at the time of the audit visits. 
Za oceno, ali so ti projekti uspešno prispevali k trajnostni rabi kmetijskih zemljišč, je Sodišče ocenilo naslednje: – ali so bili projekti upravičeni do podpore iz EKSRP, – ali so obravnavali okoljsko potrebo, ki jo je zadevna država članica navedla v svojem programu razvoja podeželja, in ali uresničujejo cilje, povezane s trajnostno rabo kmetijskih zemljišč, – ali so bile ustrezne naložbe izvedene po načrtih in ali so bile v času revizijskega obiska trajnostne.
Annex II presents, for each project, the results of this assessment together with an analysis of the reasonableness of their costs, which is developed in the next section. 
V Prilogi II so za vsak projekt posebej prikazani rezultati te ocene skupaj z analizo razumnosti njihovih stroškov, ki je pojasnjena v naslednjem oddelku.
Observations 23 33 As regards eligibility, the Court found that four projects were not eligible even at the time of the application (see Box 3). 
Opažanja 23 33 V zvezi z upravičenostjo je Sodišče ugotovilo, da štirje projekti že ob predložitvi vlog niso bili upravičeni do pomoči (glej okvir 3).
In addition, the Court found three projects which were ineligible due to issues which occurred during their implementation (see paragraph 44). 
Poleg tega je Sodišče odkrilo tri projekte, ki so bili neupravičeni zaradi težav, ki so se pojavile med njihovim izvajanjem (glej odstavek 44).
Since these seven projects (25 %) should not have been supported with EAFRD funding, the Court considers them not to be contributing to the objectives of the measure. 
Ker teh sedem projektov (25 %) ne bi smelo prejeti podpore iz EKSRP, Sodišče meni, da ne prispevajo k uresničevanju ciljev ukrepa.
34 The Court found evidence to suggest that 20 out of the 21 remaining projects addressed identified agri-environment needs. 
34 Sodišče je odkrilo dokaze, ki kažejo, da je 20 od preostalih 21 projektov obravnavalo opredeljene kmetijsko-okoljske potrebe.
The needs which were covered most frequently were landscape and biodiversity protection. 
Najpogosteje zajeti potrebi sta bili varstvo krajine in biotske raznovrstnosti.
In addition, these projects were implemented as planned and were operating sustainably at the time of the audit visits. 
Poleg tega so bili projekti izvedeni v skladu z načrti in so v času revizijskih obiskov delovali trajnostno.
Overall, the Court found indications that 20 out of the 28 projects examined (71 %) contributed to the achievement of agri-environment objectives linked to the sustainable use of agricultural land. 
Na splošno je Sodišče ugotovilo, da je 20 od 28 preučenih projektov (71 %) prispevalo k doseganju kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev, povezanih s trajnostno rabo kmetijskih zemljišč.
In the audited Member States, the costs of supported NPIs were often unreasonably high or insufficiently justified 35 In order to provide a cost-effective contribution to the sustainable use of agricultural land, NPIs must not only address related environmental needs, but should do so at a reasonable cost. 
V revidiranih državah članicah so bili stroški neproduktivnih naložb, ki so prejele podporo, pogosto nerazumno visoki ali nezadostno utemeljeni 35 Da bi neproduktivne naložbe zagotovile stroškovno učinkovit prispevek k trajnostni rabi kmetijskih zemljišč, morajo obravnavati zadevne okoljske potrebe, vendar ob razumnih stroških.