natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The CommissionŐs assurance work and its reporting of the residual error rate in its annual activity reports Annual activity reports (AARs) are the CommissionŐs key tool for reporting whether it has reasonable assurance that the control procedures put in place ensure the regularity of expenditure. 
Delo Komisije v zvezi z zagotovili in njeno poročanje o stopnji preostale napake v njenih letnih poročilih o dejavnostih Letna poročila o dejavnostih so ključna orodja Komisije za poročanje o tem, ali ima razumno zagotovilo, da vzpostavljeni kontrolni postopki zagotavljajo pravilnost odhodkov.
Last year, we pointed out that the reporting requirements for AARs had not been sufficiently adapted to the 2014-2020 control and assurance framework. 
Sodišče je lani poudarilo, da zahteve za poročanje v letnih poročilih o dejavnostih še niso dovolj prilagojene okviru kontrol in zagotovil za obdobje 2014–2020.
Since then, the Commission has made efforts to improve its arrangements for reporting on regularity. 
Komisija si je odtlej prizadevala izboljšati svoje ureditve za poročanje o pravilnosti.
In its 2018 AARs, the Commission updated its key performance indicator (KPI) on regularity and reported that the residual error rate for the 2016/2017 accounting year was below 2 % for both DGs. 
V svojih letnih poročilih o dejavnostih za leto 2018 je posodobila svoj ključni kazalnik smotrnosti v zvezi s pravilnostjo in poročala, da je stopnja preostale napake za obračunsko leto 2016/2017 za oba generalna direktorata pod 2 %.
However, we identified issues that affect the reliability of these figures. 
Vendar pa je Sodišče odkrilo zadeve, ki vplivajo na zanesljivost teh podatkov.
To this end, we reported that these rates are not yet final when the Commission publishes them and that they can only be considered to be minimum error rates . 
Zaradi tega je poročalo, da te stopnje še niso dokončne, ko jih objavi Komisija, in da lahko štejejo le za najnižje stopnje napake.
In its Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU budget (AMPR) the Commission estimates that the amount of risk at payment for the 2018 relevant expenditure in the area of ÔEconomic, social and territorial cohesionŐ is 1.7 %. 
Komisija v svojem letnem poročilu o upravljanju in smotrnosti izvrševanja proračuna EU ocenjuje, da znesek, pri katerem obstaja tveganje ob plačilu, za relevantne odhodke v letu 2018 na področju Ekonomska, socialna in teritorialna kohezija znaša 1,7 %.
However, this figure includes expenditure, which has not yet gone through the full control cycle. 
Vendar pa ta podatek vsebujejo odhodke, za katere še ni bil opravljen celoten ciklus kontrol.
This will only happen as from 2020. 
To se bo zgodilo šele od leta 2020.
We also identified a number of issues that could affect the closure of OPs from the 2014-2020 programming period with a final residual error rate below 2 %. 
Sodišče je odkrilo tudi več zadev, ki bi lahko vplivale na zaključitev operativnih programov iz programskega obdobja 2014–2020 s končno stopnjo preostale napake pod 2 %.
Our work on the different elements of our audit shows that the error rates for ÔEconomic, social and territorial cohesionŐ presented in the CommissionŐs 2018 AMPR and AARs currently can still not be relied upon. 
Delo Sodišča v zvezi z različnimi elementi revizije kaže, da se na stopnje napake za področje Ekonomska, socialna in teritorialna kohezija, predstavljene v letnem poročilu o upravljanju in smotrnosti izvrševanja proračuna EU ter letnem poročilu o dejavnostih za leto 2018, trenutno še ni mogoče opirati.
Performance assessment In 2018, we examined whether Member States set up output and result indicators in their OPs that were relevant to their objectives and whether the output and result objectives specified for projects corresponded to the OP objectives. 
Ocena smotrnosti Sodišče je leta 2018 preučilo, ali so države članice v svojih operativnih programih določile kazalnike izložkov in rezultatov, ki so relevantni za njihove cilje, in ali so cilji glede izložkov in rezultatov, določeni za projekt, ustrezali ciljem operativnega programa.
We also examined whether Member States had set up a database with information on performance at project level and to what extent audit authorities checked the reliability of that information. 
Preučilo je tudi, ali so države članice vzpostavile zbirko podatkov z informacijami o smotrnosti na ravni projektov in koliko so revizijski organi preverili zanesljivost teh informacij.
Although Member States have monitoring systems to record information on performance, we found a number of cases where authorities had not set result or output indicators at project level, and few cases where there were no indicators or targets at all with which to measure project performance. 
Čeprav so države članice vzpostavile sisteme spremljanja za evidentiranje informacij o smotrnosti, je Sodišče odkrilo več primerov, v katerih organi niso določili kazalnikov rezultatov ali izložkov na ravni projektov, ter nekaj primerov, v katerih kazalniki ali ciljne vrednosti, s katerimi bi se merila smotrnost projektov, sploh niso bili določeni.
Furthermore, we found that completed projects have not always fully achieved their performance objectives. 28 
Poleg tega je Sodišče odkrilo, da pri zaključenih projektih cilji v zvezi s smotrnostjo niso bili vedno v celoti doseženi. 28
What we recommend We highlighted that four of our recommendations from last year concern issues that we found again and have therefore not been repeated. 
Kaj Sodišče priporoča Sodišče je poudarilo, da se štiri od njegovih lanskoletnih priporočil nanašajo na zadeve, ki jih je spet odkrilo, zato jih ni ponovilo.
In addition we identified new issues and recommend that the Commission: o ensure that regular checks, based on a representative sample of disbursements to final recipients, are carried out at the level of financial intermediaries either by the audit authority or by an auditor selected by the EIB Group; o develop and implement appropriate control measures to prevent the possibility of material irregular expenditure at closure, where the regular checks were found to be insufficient; o take the necessary steps to ensure that the checklists used by managing and audit authorities include verifications of compliance with article 132 of the Common Provisions Regulation, which states that beneficiaries must receive the total amount of eligible expenditure due no later than 90 days from the submission of the related payment claim; and o address weaknesses identified at closure, and ensure that no programme can be closed with a material level of irregular expenditure. Want to know more? 
Poleg tega je odkrilo nove zadeve in Komisiji priporoča, naj: o zagotovi, da revizijski organ ali revizor, ki ga izbere skupina EIB, izvaja redne preglede na podlagi reprezentativnega vzorca izplačil končnim prejemnikom na ravni finančnih posrednikov, o razvije in izvede ustrezne kontrolne ukrepe za preprečitev možnosti pomembnih nepravilnih odhodkov ob zaključitvi, če se izkaže, da redni pregledi niso bili zadostni, o sprejme potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da je v kontrolne sezname, ki jih uporabljajo organi upravljanja in revizijski organi, vključeno preverjanje skladnosti s členom 132 uredbe o skupnih določbah, v katerem je navedeno, da morajo upravičenci prejeti celoten dolgovan znesek upravičenih odhodkov najkasneje 90 dni po predložitvi zadevnega zahtevka za plačilo, o odpravi slabosti, ugotovljene ob zaključku, in zagotovi, da noben program ne bo zaključen s pomembno ravnijo nepravilnih odhodkov. Želite izvedeti več?
Full information on our audit of EU expenditure for ÔEconomic, social and territorial cohesionŐ can be found in Chapter 6 of our 2018 annual report. 29 
Vse informacije o reviziji odhodkov EU za področje Ekonomska, socialna in teritorialna kohezija so v poglavju 6 letnega poročila Sodišča za leto 2018. 29
Natural resources Total: Ű58.0 billion What we audited This spending area covers the common agricultural policy (CAP), the common fisheries policy, and part of EU spending on the environment and climate action. 
Naravni viri Skupaj: 58,0 milijarde EUR Kaj je Sodišče revidiralo To področje porabe zajema porabo za skupno kmetijsko politiko (SKP), skupno ribiško politiko in del porabe EU za okoljske in podnebne ukrepe.
The CAP accounts for 98 % of spending on ÔNatural resourcesŐ. 
SKP predstavlja 98 % porabe na področju Naravni viri.
Its three general objectives set in EU legislation are: o viable food production, with a focus on agricultural income, agricultural productivity and price stability; o the sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, soil and water; and o balanced territorial development. 
Njeni trije splošni cilji, ki so določeni v zakonodaji EU, so: o trajnostna proizvodnja hrane s poudarkom na kmetijskih dohodkih, kmetijski produktivnosti in stabilnosti cen, o trajnostno upravljanje naravnih virov in ukrepanje na področju podnebnih sprememb, s poudarkom na emisijah toplogrednih plinov, biotski raznovrstnosti, prsti in vodah, o uravnotežen teritorialni razvoj.
The Commission, in particular the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG Agriculture and Rural Development), shares management of the CAP with paying agencies in the Member States. 
Komisija, zlasti Generalni direktorat za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja (GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja), si upravljanje SKP deli s plačilnimi agencijami v državah članicah.
CAP spending falls into three broad categories: o direct payments to farmers, which are fully funded by the EU budget; o agricultural market measures, also fully funded by the EU budget, with the exception of certain measures co-financed by the Member States, such as promotion measures and the school fruit, vegetable and milk scheme; and o Member StatesŐ rural development programmes, co-financed by the EU budget. 
Poraba za SKP se deli na tri širše kategorije: o neposredna plačila kmetom, ki se v celoti financirajo iz proračuna EU, o kmetijski tržni ukrepi, ki se prav tako v celoti financirajo iz proračuna EU, razen nekaterih ukrepov, ki jih sofinancirajo države članice, kot so promocijski ukrepi in shema šolskega sadja, zelenjave in mleka, o programi držav članic za razvoj podeželja, ki se sofinancirajo iz proračuna EU.
For 2018, expenditure of Ű58.1 billion was subject to audit in this area. 
Za leto 2018 so bili na tem področju revidirani odhodki v višini 58,1 milijarde EUR.
What we found Direct payments as a whole were free from material error Direct payments to farmers are mainly based on the area of agricultural land declared by farmers. 
Kaj je Sodišče ugotovilo Neposredna plačila kot celota so bila brez pomembnih napak Neposredna plačila kmetom se izvršujejo zlasti na podlagi površine kmetijskih zemljišč, ki jih prijavijo kmetje.
These payments account for 72 % of spending under the MFF heading ÔNatural resourcesŐ. 
Ta plačila predstavljajo 72 % porabe v okviru razdelka večletnega finančnega okvira Naravni viri.
Estimated most likely level of error Ű58.1 billion Yes 2.4 % (2017: 2.4 %) 
Ocenjena najverjetnejša stopnja napake 58,1 milijarde EUR da 2,4 % (2017: 2,4 %)
The main management tool for direct payments is the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), which incorporates the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS). 
Glavno orodje upravljanja za neposredna plačila je integrirani administrativni in kontrolni sistem (IAKS), ki vključuje identifikacijski sistem za zemljišča (LPIS).
IACS has helped to bring down the level of error in direct payments, with the LPIS making a particularly significant contribution. 
S pomočjo sistema IAKS se je znižala stopnja napake pri neposrednih plačilih, k temu pa je zelo pomembno prispeval tudi sistem LPIS.
We checked 95 direct payments and found that 77 were unaffected by error. 
Sodišče je preverilo 95 neposrednih plačil in ugotovilo, da jih je bilo 77 brez napak.
We conclude that direct payments, as a whole, were free from material error. 
Ugotavlja, da so bila neposredna plačila kot celota brez pomembnih napak.
Rural development, market measures, fisheries, environment and climate action Complex eligibility conditions increase the risk of error in these spending areas. 
Razvoj podeželja, tržni ukrepi, ribištvo, okoljski in podnebni ukrepi Kompleksni pogoji za upravičenost povečujejo tveganje napake na teh področjih porabe.
We tested 156 payments and found that 40 were affected by error. 
Sodišče je preverilo 156 plačil in ugotovilo, da jih je 40 vsebovalo napake.
The main sources of error were: o ineligible beneficiaries, activities or costs (see example); o the provision of inaccurate information on areas or animal numbers; o non-compliance with procurement or grant award rules; and o administrative errors. 
Glavni viri napak so bili: o neupravičeni upravičenci, dejavnosti ali stroški (glej primer), o predložitev netočnih informacij o površinah ali številu živali, o neupoštevanje pravil javnega naročanja ali pravil za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev, o administrativne napake.
31 Example: A beneficiary failed to comply with the eligibility rules for on-farm investments We examined a case where a beneficiary, together with other family members, submitted a joint application for support to construct a pigsty, with capacity for up to 600 sows. 
31 Primer: upravičenec ni izpolnjeval pravil za upravičenost, ki veljajo za naložbe v kmetije Sodišče je preučilo primer, v katerem je upravičenec skupaj z drugimi družinskimi člani vložil skupno vlogo za podporo za izgradnjo svinjaka z zmogljivostjo do 600 svinj.
Each of the joint beneficiaries applied for the maximum level of support, which was around Ű215 000. 
Vsak od skupnih upravičencev je zaprosil za najvišjo možno stopnjo podpore, ki je znašala približno 215 000 EUR.
Since the purpose of the measure was to support the development of small and medium-sized farms, the eligibility conditions stipulated that applicantsŐ holdings must have neither an economic size above Ű250 000 nor an area greater than 300 hectares. 
Ker je bil ukrep namenjen podpori razvoju malih in srednjih kmetij, je bilo v pogojih za upravičenost določeno, da ekonomska velikost kmetijskega gospodarstva vlagatelja ne sme presegati 250 000 EUR, njegova površina pa ne sme biti večja od 300 hektarjev.
We found that they held shares in a family company operating on the same site. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so imeli deleže v družinski družbi, ki je delovala na isti lokaciji.
When taking into account the beneficiaryŐs share of the family company, his holding exceeded the ceiling for economic size. 
Ob upoštevanju upravičenčevega deleža v družinski družbi je njegovo podjetje presegalo zgornjo mejo za ekonomsko velikost.
Preventive and corrective measures The Commission and the Member StatesŐ authorities had applied corrective measures that directly affected 53 of the 251 transactions examined. 
Preventivni in popravljalni ukrepi Komisija in organi držav članic so uporabili popravljalne ukrepe, ki so neposredno vplivali na 53 od 251 transakcij, ki jih je Sodišče preučilo.
Without these measures, our estimated level of error for this chapter would have been higher by 0.6 percentage point. 
Brez teh ukrepov bi bila ocenjena stopnja napake, ki jo je izračunalo Sodišče, za to poglavje za 0,6 odstotne točke višja.
At the same time, in 12 cases of quantified error, the national authorities had sufficient information to prevent, or to detect and correct, the error before declaring the expenditure to the Commission. 
Poleg tega so imeli nacionalni organi v 12 primerih količinsko opredeljenih napak dovolj informacij, da bi napako lahko preprečili ali odkrili in popravili, preden so bili odhodki prijavljeni Komisiji.
Had the national authorities made proper use of all the information at their disposal, the estimated level of error would have been 0.6 percentage point lower. 
Če bi nacionalni organi ustrezno uporabili vse informacije, ki so jih imeli na voljo, bi bila ocenjena stopnja napake za 0,6 odstotne točke nižja.
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentŐs reporting on regularity of CAP spending DG Agriculture and Rural Development uses national control statistics it receives from the paying agencies. 
Poročanje Generalnega direktorata za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja o pravilnosti porabe SKP GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja uporablja nacionalne kontrolne statistične podatke, ki jih dobi od plačilnih agencij.
It also makes adjustments based on the results of the certification bodiesŐ audits, and on its own checks and professional judgement, to arrive at an estimation of the amount at risk at payment. 
Za izračun ocene zneska, pri katerem obstaja tveganje ob plačilu, naredi tudi prilagoditve na podlagi rezultatov revizij certifikacijskih organov ter lastnih pregledov in strokovne presoje.
The director of each of the 76 paying agencies provides DG Agriculture and Rural Development with an annual management declaration on the effectiveness of their control systems and a report on the paying agencyŐs checks. 
Direktorji vsake od 76 plačilnih agencij GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja vsako leto predložijo letno izjavo o upravljanju v zvezi z uspešnostjo svojih kontrolnih sistemov ter poročilo o pregledih, ki jih opravi plačilna agencija.
Since 2015, in order to provide additional assurance, the certification bodies have been required to give an annual opinion for each paying agency on the legality and regularity of the expenditure for which the Member States have requested reimbursement. 
Od leta 2015 morajo certifikacijski organi zaradi dodatnega zagotovila vsako leto za vsako plačilno agencijo dati mnenje o zakonitosti in pravilnosti odhodkov, za katere so države članice zahtevale povračilo.
DG Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentŐs checks identified shortcomings in the certification bodiesŐ work. 
Pri pregledih, ki jih je opravil GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja, so bile ugotovljene pomanjkljivosti v delu certifikacijskih organov.
As we noted last year, continued improvement in the certification bodiesŐ work is required if the Commission is to use their work as its primary source of assurance on the regularity of CAP spending. 
Kot je Sodišče lani navedlo, je treba delo certifikacijskih organov še naprej izboljševati, če ga namerava Komisija uporabljati kot primarni vir zagotovila o pravilnosti porabe SKP.
Based on their paying agenciesŐ control statistics, Member States reported an overall level of error close to 1 % for CAP spending as a whole. 
Države članice so na podlagi kontrolnih statističnih podatkov svojih plačilnih agencij za porabo SKP kot celoto poročale o skupni stopnji napake v višini blizu 1 %.
We reviewed DG Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentŐs adjustments to Member State error rates. 
Sodišče je pregledalo prilagoditve, ki jih je GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja uporabil za stopnje napake, ki so jih sporočile države članice.
As in previous years, DG Agriculture and Rural Development based most of its adjustments on its own checks of paying agency systems and spending. 
Tako kot v prejšnjih letih je večina prilagoditev, ki jih je izvedel GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja, temeljila na njegovih preverjanjih sistemov in porabe plačilnih agencij.
DG Agriculture and Rural Development calculates the majority of these adjustments as flat rates, intended to reflect the significance and extent of weaknesses it identified in control systems. 
GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja večino teh prilagoditev izračuna z uporabo pavšalnih stopenj, ki naj bi odražale pomembnost in obseg slabosti, ki jih je odkril v kontrolnih sistemih.
DG Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentŐs AAR estimates the amount at risk at payment at around 2.1 % for CAP spending as a whole and at around 1.8 % for direct payments. The Commission also presents these results in its AMPR. 
V letnem poročilu o dejavnostih GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja znaša ocena zneska, pri katerem obstaja tveganje ob plačilu, približno 2,1 % za porabo SKP kot celoto in približno 1,8 % za neposredna plačila.
The CommissionŐs estimate is consistent with our conclusion indicating a material level of error for ÔNatural resourcesŐ spending as a whole, but not for direct payments. 
Ocena Komisije je v skladu z zaključkom Sodišča, v katerem je navedeno, da je za področje Naravni viri kot celoto stopnja napake pomembna, za neposredna plačila pa ne.
Performance assessment We reviewed 113 sampled rural development actions in 18 Member States. 
Ocena smotrnosti Sodišče je pregledalo 113 ukrepov za razvoj podeželja, vključenih v vzorec, ki so se izvajali v 18 državah članicah.
We found that most actions had produced the expected outputs and that Member States generally checked the reasonableness of costs, but had made little use of simplified cost options. 
Ugotovilo je, da so se z večino ukrepov dosegli pričakovani izložki in da so države članice na splošno preverjale razumnost stroškov, vendar so malo uporabljale možnosti poenostavljenega obračunavanja stroškov.
We examined the Commission and Member StatesŐ performance measurement and reporting under the CAP common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF). 
Sodišče je preučilo merjenje smotrnosti, ki ga izvajajo Komisija in države članice, ter njihovo poročanje prek skupnega okvira spremljanja in ocenjevanja, ki se uporablja v okviru SKP.
We focused on their use of result indicators for 113 rural development payments and 95 direct payments. 
Osredotočilo se je na njihovo uporabo kazalnikov rezultatov za 113 plačil za razvoj podeželja in 95 neposrednih plačil.
In line with the findings of our previous audits on performance measurement in agricultural and rural development spending, we identified several weaknesses in the way in which the Commission and Member States had applied the CMEF result indicators to measure and report on the performance of spending. 32 
Sodišče je skladno z ugotovitvami svojih prejšnjih revizij za merjenje smotrnosti porabe na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja ugotovilo več slabosti v tem, kako so Komisija in 32 države članice uporabljale kazalnike rezultatov iz skupnega okvira spremljanja in ocenjevanja za merjenje smotrnosti porabe ter poročanje o njej.
In the proposal to introduce a performance-based delivery model for the CAP for post-2020 period, the Commission defined common output, result and impact indicators. 
Komisija je v predlogu za uvedbo modela izvajanja, ki temelji na smotrnosti, v okviru SKP za obdobje po letu 2020 opredelila skupne kazalnike izložkov, rezultatov in učinka.
In our opinion No 7/2018 on the proposal, while we welcomed the shift to a performance-based model, we found that these indicators were not yet fully developed and made specific comments on the proposed indicators. 
7/2018 o tem predlogu sicer odobrava prehod na model, ki temelji na smotrnosti, vendar je tudi ugotovilo, da ti kazalniki še niso bili povsem razviti, in dalo specifične pripombe v zvezi s predlaganimi kazalniki.
What we recommend In our 2017 annual report, we made three recommendations to the Commission with a target implementation date end of 2019. 
Kaj Sodišče priporoča Sodišče je v svojem letnem poročilu za leto 2017 Komisiji dalo tri priporočila s ciljnim rokom za izvedbo konec leta 2019.
They were related to the Member StatesŐ actions to address the causes of errors and the quality of the work of certification bodies. 
Nanašala so se na ukrepe držav članic za obravnavanje vzrokov napak in kakovost dela certifikacijskih organov.
These recommendations are also relevant to this yearŐs findings and conclusions, and we will follow them up in due course. 
Ta priporočila so relevantna tudi za letošnje ugotovitve in zaključke in Sodišče bo kmalu spremljalo njihovo izvedbo.