natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
02 For the EU, the delivery of specific expertise is characteristic of techni‐ cal assistance measures in the area of external support for developing coun‐ tries and other non‐Member States. 
02 V EU je zagotavljanje posebnega strokovnega znanja značilno za ukrepe tehnične pomoči na področju zunanje podpore za države v razvoju in druge države nečlanice.
The Commission also provides TA, in the form of funding, through three other main channels: ο it meets the costs of executive agencies set up to manage pro‐ jects and programmes in both specific and cross‐cutting policy areas; ο it has established headings, financed by the operational bud‐ get2, for its directorates‐general to run, manage and coordinate pro‐ grammes in specific policy areas; ο it co‐finances the Member States’ use of TA in connection with EU funds (e.g. EAFRD, European Fish‐ eries Fund (EFF), Cohesion spend‐ ing, European Regional Develop‐ ment Fund (ERDF)) to facilitate the implementation of national and regional programmes or actions. 
Poleg tega Komisija zagotavlja tehnično pomoč v obliki financiranja še na tri druge glavne načine, in sicer: ο plačuje stroške izvajalskih agencij, vzpostavljenih za upravljanje projektov in programov na področjih posebnih in medsektorskih politik; ο uvedla je postavke, financirane iz operativnega proračuna2, ki jih njeni generalni direktorati uporabljajo za vodenje, upravljanje in usklajevanje programov na posebnih področjih; ο sofinancira uporabo tehnične pomoči v državah članicah v povezavi s skladi EU (npr. EKSRP, ESR, Kohezijski sklad, ESRR), da bi omogočila izvajanje nacionalnih in regionalnih programov ali ukrepov.
03 This audit report covers the last two of these areas of expenditure, corre‐ sponding to the way technical assis‐ tance funding is used in the ‘Agricul‐ ture and rural development’ policy area. 
03 To revizijsko poročilo zajema zadnji od teh področij odhodkov, ki ustrezata načinu uporabe financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja.
04 Traditionally, the cost categories financed in this way are preparation of studies and evaluation reports, the or‐ ganisation of meetings and seminars, training and the services of external experts. 
04 Tradicionalno se na ta način financirajo naslednje kategorije stroškov: priprava študij in ocenjevalnih poročil, organizacija sestankov in seminarjev, usposabljanje ter storitve zunanjih strokovnjakov.
However, funding can also cover staff costs, IT development and maintenance, information and publicity activities and networking. 
Financiranje pa lahko pokriva tudi stroške za osebje, razvoj in vzdrževanje informacijske tehnologije, dejavnosti informiranja in obveščanja javnosti ter mreženja.
1 OECD definition in DAC Statistical Reporting Directive, 12 November 2010, paragraphs 47 to 48. 
1 Opredelitev OECD iz direktive o statističnem poročanju Odbora za razvojno pomoč (DAC), 12. november 2010, odstavka 47 in 48.
2 As the Commission is the only EU institution with an operational budget, it alone is responsible for financing, implementing and supervising TA funding at EU level. 
2 Komisija je edina institucija EU z operativnim proračunom, zato je samo ona odgovorna za financiranje, izvrševanje in nadziranje financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči na ravni EU.
Introduction 09 The recent history of technical assistance in agriculture and rural development 05 The rules on the use of technical assis‐ tance in agriculture are not the same for Pillar I of the common agricultural policy (CAP) (market measures and direct aid through the EAGF) and Pillar II (rural development support through the EAFRD). 
Uvod 09 Tehnična pomoč na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja v zadnjem obdobju 05 Za prvi steber SKP (tržni ukrepi in neposredna pomoč iz EKJS) in drugi steber SKP (podpora za razvoj podeželja iz EKSRP) veljajo različna pravila o uporabi tehnične pomoči na področju kmetijstva.
08 From 2004, the eight Sapard countries which that year joined the EU were able to benefit from new transitory measures, including additional TA resources from the EAGGF ‘Guarantee’ section to help them strengthen the administrative capacity to manage their rural development programmes (s) efficiently. 
08 Osem držav, v katerih se je izvajal program Sapard, se je leta 2004 pridružilo EU. Takrat so lahko začele uporabljati nove prehodne ukrepe (vključno z dodatnimi sredstvi za tehnično pomoč iz Jamstvenega oddelka EKUJS), ki naj bi jim pomagali pri krepitvi administrativne zmogljivosti za učinkovito upravljanje njihovih programov razvoja podeželja.
09 For the 2007–13 period — which is the main focus of this report — the link to structural spending was severed, and funding (including the TA component) in agriculture and rural development was addressed separately through legislation specific to the policy area. While this did not mean major rule changes for Pillar I, there were signifi‐ cant developments in the approach towards the use of TA under Pillar II. 
09 V obdobju 2007–2013, na katerega se predvsem osredotoča to poročilo, je bila povezava s strukturno porabo pre-trgana. Financiranje (vključno s komponento tehnične pomoči) na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja se je obravnavalo ločeno v zakonodaji za posamezno področje. To ni veliko spremenilo pravil za prvi steber, v pristopu za uporabo tehnične pomoči v okviru drugega stebra pa so nastale bistvene spremembe.
The applicable legislation is described in the following section. 
Veljavna zakonodaja je opisana v naslednjem oddelku.
10 One noteworthy element of TA pro‐ gramming that was introduced for 2007–13 was the requirement for networking in rural development, both nationally4 and across the EU5. 
10 Eden od omembe vrednih elementov programskega načrtovanja tehnične pomoči, uveden za obdobje 2007– 2013, je bila zahteva po mreženju pri razvoju podeželja na nacionalni ravni4 in na ravni EU5.
Although it accounted for only a small part of the EAFRD allocation to TA, networking was an important addi‐ tion because it established an EU‐wide framework involving a large number and variety of potential partners. 
Čeprav je bil za mreženje dodeljen le majhen del sredstev EKSRP za tehnično pomoč, je bil pomemben dodatek, saj je vzpostavil okvir na ravni EU s številnimi in raznolikimi potencialnimi partnerji.
3 All of the 2004 and 2007 accession States except Cyprus and Malta. 
3 Vse države pristopnice iz let 2004 in 2007 razen Cipra in Malte.
5 Through the European Network for Rural Development. 
5 Z Evropsko mrežo za razvoj podeželja.
07 During the 2000–06 programming period, 10 central and eastern Europe‐ an candidate countries3 were offered technical assistance in agriculture in the context of Sapard. 
07 V programskem obdobju 2000–2006 je bila desetim državam kandidatkam iz Srednje in Vzhodne Evrope3 ponujena tehnična pomoč na področju kmetijstva v okviru Sapard.
This was one of three structural programmes (the oth‐ ers being Phare and ISPA) addressing institutional, transport, environmental and agricultural capacity‐building to prepare administrations for EU mem‐ bership. 
Ta je bil eden od treh strukturnih programov (poleg Phare in ISPA), ki so obravnavali vzpostavljanje institucionalnih, prometnih, okoljskih in kmetijskih zmogljivosti zaradi priprave državnih uprav na članstvo v EU.
The three programmes had shared rules on TA implementation and eligibility. 
Ti trije programi so imeli enaka pravila o izvajanju tehnične pomoči in upravičenosti do nje.
In the case of Sapard, the EU bore the entire amount of the TA expenditure incurred in each coun‐ try at the Commission’s initiative, at an average rate of 3 % of annual funding. 
Pri Sapard je EU krila celotne odhodke za tehnično pomoč, ki so na pobudo Komisije nastali v posameznih državah, v povprečni višini 3 % letnega financiranja.
Introduction 10 Rules and regulations 11 For 2007–13, the key references to TA in agriculture and rural development appeared in more than one EU regula‐ tion6. 
Uvod 10 Pravila in uredbe 11 Za obdobje 2007–2013 je ključne sklice na tehnično pomoč na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja vsebovala več kot ena uredba EU6.
Under Pillar I, co‐financing of Member States’ TA was only allowed for a few schemes7 which together ac‐ counted for less than 5 % of the EAGF budget. 
V okviru prvega stebra je bilo sofinanciranje tehnične pomoči za države članice dovoljeno le za nekatere sheme7, ki so skupaj dosegale manj kot 5 % proračuna EKJS.
In addition, Article 13 of the CAP financing regulation explicitly stated: ‘Expenditure relating to admin‐ istrative and personnel costs incurred by Member States and beneficiaries of aid from the EAGF shall not be borne by the Fund’. 
Poleg tega je bilo v členu 13 uredbe o financiranju SKP izrecno navedeno: „Odhodk[i] za stroške administracije in osebja, ki jih plačujejo države članice in upravičenci pomoči iz EKUJS, ne gredo v breme EKUJS.”
In contrast with these restrictions, no maximum amount was specified for the Commission’s use of TA funding under Pillar I. 12 In rural development, the rules auth‐ orised the Commission to use up to 0.25 % of the annual EAFRD allocation to fund TA activities. 
V nasprotju s temi omejitvami ni bil določen najvišji znesek financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči, ki ga lahko Komisija porabi v okviru prvega stebra. 12 Na področju razvoja podeželja so pravila Komisiji dovoljevala, da za financiranje dejavnosti tehnične pomoči porabi do 0,25 % letno dodeljenih sredstev iz EKSRP.
These were listed as ‘preparatory, monitoring, adminis‐ trative support, evaluation and control measures’8. 
Dejavnosti so bile navedene kot ukrepi „za pripravo, spremljanje, administrativno pomoč, vrednotenje in nadziranje”8.
The Member States were given full charge of their own TA bud‐ get, which was set at a maximum of 4 % of the total amount for each RDP and was to be spent on ‘preparation, management, monitoring, evaluation, information and control activities of programme assistance’9. 
Države članice so dobile polne pristojnosti za svoje proračune za tehnično pomoč, ki so lahko znašali največ 4 % skupnega zneska za posamezni program razvoja podeželja, porabljeni pa so morali biti za „dejavnosti priprave, upravljanja, spremljanja, vrednotenja ter informiranja in nadzora, ki se nanašajo na podporo programu”9.
Within these limits, both the Commission and the Member States were free to determine how much to devote to TA and which projects/activities could be financed. 
Ob upoštevanju teh omejitev so se lahko Komisija in države članice prosto odločale, koliko bodo namenile za tehnično pomoč in katere projekte/dejavnosti je mogoče financirati.
13 The Commission has not put forward any major changes to the principles of TA funding in the current program‐ ming period (2014–20), either in rural development or in the general field of agriculture. Meanwhile, the planned volume of TA spending by both the Member States and the Commission is scheduled to increase (see Annex). 
13 Komisija za sedanje programsko obdobje (2014–2020) ni predlagala velikih sprememb načel financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči niti na področju razvoja podeželja niti na splošnem področju kmetijstva, hkrati pa naj bi se načrtovani obseg porabe za tehnično pomoč držav članic in Komisije povečal (glej Prilogo).
6 The main provisions for 2007–13 were Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the CAP (the CAP financing regulation) (OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 
1290/2005 z dne 21. junija 2005 o financiranju skupne kmetijske politike (uredba o financiranju SKP) (UL L 209, 11.8.2005, str.
1), Article 66 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the EAFRD (the EAFRD Regulation) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 
1698/2005 z dne 20. septembra 2005 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (uredba o EKSRP) (UL L 277, 21.10.2005, str.
1) and Articles 40 to 41a of 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 EAFRD (the implementing regulation for EAFRD support) (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 
1) ter členi 40 do 41a Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1974/2006 z dne 15. decembra 2006 o podrobnih pravilih glede uporabe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
Like the 2002 financial regulation (Council Regulation No 1605/2002), these texts have now been repealed and replaced. 
Ta besedila so bila tako kot finančna uredba iz leta 2002 (Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1605/2002) zdaj razveljavljena in nadomeščena.
7 Such as wine and beekeeping measures, the school fruit scheme and the POSEI scheme for outermost regions. 
7 Kot ukrepa za vino in čebelarstvo, shema za razdeljevanje sadja v šolah in program POSEI za najbolj oddaljene regije.
8 Article 66(1) of the EAFRD regulation. 
8 Člen 66(1) uredbe o EKSRP.
9 Article 66(2) of the EAFRD regulation. 
9 Člen 66(2) uredbe o EKSRP.
Introduction 11 Budgeting and spending levels 14 In Title 05 of the EU budget (‘Agricul‐ ture and rural development’), ap‐ propriations for TA spending appear under both operational10 and adminis‐ trative headings11. 
Uvod 11 Proračunsko načrtovanje in ravni porabe 14 V naslovu 05 proračuna EU (Kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja) se odobrena proračunska sredstva za porabo za tehnično pomoč pojavljajo pod operativni-mi10 in administrativnimi postavkami11.
15 The table gives an overview of TA in agriculture and rural development dur‐ ing the 2007–13 period. 
15 V tabeli je pregled tehnične pomoči na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja v obdobju 2007–2013.
16 At the end of the programming period, the Commission had not yet exhausted its TA commitments for Pillar I and Pillar II. 
16 Komisija do konca programskega obdobja še ni izčrpala svojih obveznosti tehnične podpore za prvi in drugi steber.
The amount allocated under Pillar II was 0.19 % of the total EAFRD budget, significantly less than the per‐ mitted ceiling, and by the end of 2013 only around a quarter of this alloca‐ tion had been spent. 
Znesek, dodeljen v okviru drugega stebra, je znašal 0,19 % skupnega proračuna EKSRP, kar je veliko manj od dovoljene zgornje meje. Do konca leta 2013 je bila porabljena le približno četrtina teh dodeljenih sredstev.
The situation was similar in the Member States, where the average amount planned for Pillar II was less than 1.9 % of the total rural development budget, while average execution was around 0.8 % at the end of 2013 — again, both significantly lower than the 4 % ceiling. 
Stanje je bilo podobno tudi v državah članicah, kjer je bil za drugi steber v povprečju načrtovan znesek manjši od 1,9 % skupnega proračuna za razvoj podeželja, izvrševanje pa je bilo do konca leta 2013 v povprečju 0,8 %. Tudi tu je bilo oboje bistveno nižje od zgornje meje v višini 4 %.
However, because accounting can include costs incurred up to 2015 (the ‘n+2’ rule), final execution levels from all budgets may be much higher. 
Toda ker so lahko pri računovodenju zajeti stroški, ki so nastali do leta 2015 (pravilo N+2), so lahko končne ravni izvrševanja vseh proračunov bistveno višje.
10 Chapters 05 02 and 05 03 for specific schemes under Pillar I; chapter 05 04 for Pillar II. 
10 Za posamezne sheme v okviru prvega stebra v poglavjih 05 02 in 05 03; za drugi steber v poglavju 05 04.
Some elements of TA spending are also included in chapter 05 08, which groups the general policy coordination activities of the CAP, i.e. those going beyond a specific programme area. 
Nekateri elementi porabe za tehnično pomoč so vključeni tudi v poglavje 05 08, ki združuje splošne dejavnosti za usklajevanje politike SKP, torej tiste, ki ne zajemajo le posameznega programskega področja.
11 Article 05 01 04 (support expenditure). 
11 Člen 05 01 04 (odhodki za podporo).
Although classified as administrative appropriations, costs of this nature are charged to the operational expenditure of the programme to which they contribute. 
Čeprav so tovrstni stroški razvrščeni med administrativna (upravna) odobrena proračunska sredstva, so obračunani pri operativnih odhodkih programa, za katerega se porabijo.
The crucial point is that they must be clearly linked to either the EAGF or the EAFRD. 
Bistveno je, da morajo biti jasno povezani z EKJS ali EKSRP.
Another part of chapter 05 01 (administrative) expenditure is also relevant to this audit. This concerns ‘Other management expenditure’ (item 05 01 02 11), a heading used to finance activities which, while very similar to operational TA, are not programme‐specific and therefore do not qualify under the regulations. 
Za to revizijo je relevanten še en del (administrativnih) odhodkov iz poglavja 05 01, in sicer „odhodki za ostalo upravljanje” (postavka 05 01 02 11), iz katere se financirajo dejavnosti, ki so resda podobne operativni tehnični pomoči, vendar niso značilne za program in zato na podlagi uredb niso upravičene.
Overview of TA expenditure under Pillar I and Pillar II (million euro) Policy area Scheme Beneficiary Ceiling (%) TA budget planning (commitments) 2007–13 Financial execution 2007–13 Agriculture and rural development Pillar I COMM N/A 73.5 54.4 MS N/A No consolidated data available Pillar II COMM 240.6 (0.25 %) 188.0 47.9 MS 3 849.5 (4 %) 1 513.0 788.4 TOTAL ‘Agriculture and rural development’ 1 774.5 890.8 Note: All figures have been rounded. 
Pregled odhodkov za tehnično pomoč v okviru prvega in drugega stebra (v milijonih EUR) Področje Shema Upravičenec Zgornja meja (v %) Načrtovanje proračuna za tehnično pomoč (obveznosti) 2007–2013 Finančno izvrševanje 2007–2013 Kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja prvi steber Komisija n. r. 73,5 54,4 država članica n. r. Konsolidirani podatki niso na voljo drugi steber Komisija 240,6 (0,25 %) 188,0 47,9 država članica 3 849,5 (4 %) 1 513,0 788,4 Kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja SKUPAJ 1 774,5 890,8 Opomba: Vsi zneski so zaokroženi.
Source: ECA, on the basis of the EU general budget and data provided by the Commission. Table 
Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi splošnega proračuna EU in podatkov, ki jih je zagotovila Komisija. Tabela
Audit scope, objectives 12 and approach Audit scope and objectives 17 The Court examined the use of TA funds in agriculture and rural develop‐ ment during the 2007–13 program‐ ming period. 
Obseg in cilji revizije 12 ter revizijski pristop Obseg in cilji revizije 17 Sodišče je preučilo porabo sredstev za tehnično pomoč na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja v programskem obdobju 2007–2013.
The audit focused on the regularity, the effectiveness and the efficiency of funding at the Commis‐ sion and in the Member States. 
Revizija je bila osredotočena na pravilnost, uspešnost in učinkovitost financiranja v Komisiji in državah članicah.
18 The audit topic was chosen, in part, because of the diversity of TA (as a cross‐cutting area of spending), which appears under a number of budget headings (paragraph 14) and, finally, for which there was no sin‐ gle clear definition in the applicable legislation. 
18 Tema revizije je bila izbrana deloma zaradi raznolikosti tehnične pomoči (kot medsektorskega področja porabe), ki se pojavlja pod številnimi proračunskimi postavkami (odstavek 14), in zato, ker v veljavni zakonodaji zanjo ni bilo nobene jasne opredelitve.
19 The audit aimed to assess how well TA was managed and whether it contrib‐ uted to the core objectives of agricul‐ ture and rural development policy. 
19 Namen revizije je bil oceniti, kako dobro je bilo upravljanje tehnične pomoči in ali je prispevala k temeljnim ciljem politike kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja.
Specifically, we examined: ο what activities were financed from TA funding (see paragraphs 24 to 51); ο whether the costs claimed for TA were eligible (paragraphs 52 to 59); ο whether the arrangements for measuring TA performance were appropriate and effective (para‐ graphs 60 to 82). 
Natančneje, preučili smo: ο katere dejavnosti so bile financirane v okviru tehnične pomoči (glej odstavke 24 do 51); ο ali so bili stroški, prijavljeni za tehnično pomoč, upravičeni (glej odstavke 52 do 59); ο ali so bile ureditve za merjenje smotrnosti poslovanja pri tehnični pomoči ustrezne in uspešne (odstavki 60 do 82).
Audit approach 20 The main audit work involved visits to the Commission’s Directorate‐General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG Agriculture and Rural Develop‐ ment) and to five Member States (Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Austria and Poland) using TA funding in agricul‐ ture and rural development. 
Revizijski pristop 20 Glavno revizijsko delo je zajemalo obiske Generalnega direktorata za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja Komisije (GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja) in petih držav članic (Italije, Litve, Madžarske, Avstrije in Poljske), ki so uporabljale financiranje v okviru tehnične pomoči na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja.
These countries were chosen because, taken together, they accounted for more than 50 % of TA spending during the audited period. 
Te države so bile izbrane, ker je bilo v revidiranem obdobju v njih porabljenih več kot 50 % sredstev tehnične pomoči.
21 Our findings are based on informa‐ tion obtained from the audit visits and from a survey of regional and national managing authorities in the 27 Mem‐ ber States. 
21 Naše ugotovitve temeljijo na informacijah, pridobljenih z revizijskimi obiski in anketo, opravljeno pri regionalnih in nacionalnih organih upravljanja v 27 državah članicah.
Of the 92 such authorities, 50 replied to the survey, though not always in full or in much detail. 
Od 92 takih organov jih je anketo izpolnilo 50, čeprav ne vsi v celoti ali podrobno.
All told, the survey and country visits produced information on approximately 76 % of all TA expenditure planned in rural development as at the end of 2013. 
Skupno so anketa in obiski v državah dali informacije o približno 76 % vseh odhodkov za tehnično pomoč, ki so bili do konca leta 2013 načrtovani na področju razvoja podeželja.
22 In the five selected Member States, the auditors visited the main benefi‐ ciaries of TA funding — ministries of agriculture, paying agencies and other bodies in charge of implementing rural development measures. 
22 Revizorji so v petih izbranih državah članicah obiskali glavne upravičence do financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči: ministrstva za kmetijstvo, plačilne agencije in druge organe, zadolžene za izvajanje ukrepov razvoja podeželja.
They also held meetings with other stakehold‐ ers, such as representatives of farmers’ associations, chambers of agriculture, non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) and the other members of na‐ tional rural networks. 
Opravili so tudi sestanke z drugimi deležniki, kot so predstavniki združenj kmetov, kmetijskih zbornic in nevladnih organizacij ter drugi člani nacionalnih mrež za podeželje.
Lastly, the audi‐ tors reviewed 20 DG Agriculture and Rural Development projects funded from the TA budget and 91 TA projects in the five Member States. 
Poleg tega so revizorji pregledali 20 projektov GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja, financiranih iz proračuna za tehnično pomoč, in 91 projektov tehnične pomoči v petih državah članicah.
Audit scope, objectives and approach 13 23 Owing to the Article 13 prohibition on administrative spending under the EAGF (see paragraph 11) and the ab‐ sence of consolidated data on the very few permitted cases of Pillar I TA, the audit in the Member States focused on rural development (Pillar II) spending. 
Obseg in cilji revizije ter revizijski pristop 13 23 Ker člen 13 prepoveduje administrativno porabo v okviru EKJS (glej odstavek 11) in ker ni konsolidiranih podatkov o zelo maloštevilnih dovoljenih primerih tehnične pomoči v okviru prvega stebra, je bila revizija v državah članicah osredotočena na porabo za razvoj podeželja (drugi steber).
TA funding for EU candidate countries was excluded from the audit because of the minimal expenditure involved (just 0.3 million euro for the entire programming period). 
Financiranje v okviru tehnične pomoči za države kandidatke za vstop v EU ni bilo zajeto v revizijo, ker so ti odhodki minimalni (samo 0,3 milijona EUR v celotnem programskem obdobju).
Observations 14 How is money for technical assistance actually spent? 
Opažanja 14 Kako se denar za tehnično pomoč dejansko porabi?