natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally the audit examined the administrative and management procedures used for the implementation of the annual plans. 
Nazadnje so bili med revizijo preučeni upravni in upravljavski postopki, ki se uporabljajo pri izvajanju letnih načrtov.
The main questions addressed in this report are the following: (a) Do the objectives of the programme remain valid and is the approach appropriate? (b) Are the means commensurate with the objectives sought and adequately implemented? (c) Are the procedures being applied as intended? 
V tem poročilu so obravnavana naslednja glavna vprašanja: (a) Ali so cilji programa še vedno veljavni in ali je pristop ustrezen? (b) Ali sredstva ustrezajo zastavljenim ciljem in ali se ustrezno izvajajo? (c) Se postopki uporabljajo, kakor je bilo predvideno?
To answer these questions the audit work covered the data for measuring the programme’s impact in relation to each of the objectives set, the selection and eligibility criteria for charitable organisations participating in the scheme and for the final beneficiaries, the implementation of the annual plans by all stakeholders involved and the mechanisms used for the distribution of the foodstuffs in terms of quantity, quality and variety. 
Za odgovore na ta vprašanja je revizijsko delo zajelo podatke za merjenje učinka programa na vsakega od zastavljenih ciljev, merila za izbiro in upravičenost za dobrodelne organizacije, ki sodelujejo v programu, in za končne upravičence, uresničevanje letnih načrtov s strani vseh sodelujočih zainteresiranih strani ter mehanizme, ki se uporabljajo za razdeljevanje, z vidika količine, kakovosti in raznovrstnosti živil.
Finally the system for establishing the needs, the allocation of the financial resources to the Member States and the procurement procedures for the final products to be supplied to charitable organisations for distribution were examined. 
Nazadnje so bili pregledani sistem za opredeljevanje potreb, dodeljevanje finančnih sredstev državam članicam ter postopki javnega naročanja za končne proizvode, ki jih je treba dobaviti dobrodelnim organizacijam za razdeljevanje.
The audit covered the management and monitoring of the programme at both the Commission and in selected Member States. 
Revizija je zajela upravljanje in spremljanje programa na Komisiji in v izbranih državah članicah.
The audit work focused on the analysis, documentation and testing of the procedures and systems applied for the management of the programme by the Commission, by the competent national authorities, and by some of the designated charitable organisations at national, regional and local level participating in the actual distribution of foodstuffs to deprived persons. 
Revizijsko delo je bilo usmerjeno na analizo, dokumentiranje in preskušanje postopkov in sistemov, ki so jih za upravljanje programa uporabljali Komisija, pristojni nacionalni organi in nekatere imenovane dobrodelne organizacije na nacionalni, regionalni in lokalni ravni, ki sodelujejo pri dejanskem razdeljevanju živil ogroženim osebam.
The audit was carried out in four Member States — Spain, France, Italy and Poland — accounting for more than 72 % of the annual budgetary appropriations. 
Revizija je bila izvedena v štirih državah članicah – v Španiji, Franciji, Italiji in na Poljskem – ki predstavljajo več kot 72 % letnih odobrenih proračunskih sredstev.
The audit focused on the plans for the years 2006–2008. 
Revizija je bila usmerjena na načrte za leta 2006–2008.
13 Source: Charitable Organisations. 
13 Vir: Dobrodelne organizacije.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed 14 OBSERVATIONS THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH: DO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME REMAIN VALID AND IS THE APPROACH APPROPRIATE? 
6/2009 – Pomoč Evropske unije v hrani za ogrožene osebe: ocena ciljev, sredstev in uporabljenih metod 14 OPAŽANJA CILJI PROGRAMA IN PRISTOP: ALI SO CILJI PROGRAMA ŠE VEDNO VELJAVNI IN ALI JE PRISTOP USTREZEN?
THE DICHOTOMY OF THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES 23. 
DIHOTOMIJA CILJEV PROGRAMA 23.
The legal provisions14 set for the measure the twin objectives of making a significant contribution towards the well-being of the most deprived citizens and the stabilisation of agricultural markets through the disposal of part of the intervention stocks (see Box 6). 
Pravne določbe14 za ukrep določajo dvojni cilj, in sicer, da pomembno prispeva k blaginji najbolj ogroženih državljanov in da z odstranitvijo dela intervencijskih zalog stabilizira kmetijske trge (glej okvir 6).
The programme’s implementation responsibility has been given to the actors generally involved in the management of agricultural expenditure, namely the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development within the Commission and, in the Member States, the paying agency dealing with agricultural payments, and responsible for managing the intervention stocks. 
Odgovornost za izvajanje programa je bila dodeljena akterjem, ki so na splošno vključeni v upravljanje kmetijskih odhodkov, in sicer Generalnemu direktoratu za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja znotraj Komisije, v državah članicah pa plačilni agenciji, ki se ukvarja s kmetijskimi plačili in je odgovorna za upravljanje intervencijskih zalog.
14 Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 laying down general rules as incorporated in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. 
14 Uredba (EGS) št. 3730/87 o določitvi splošnih pravil, kakor je bila vključena v Uredbo (ES) št.
BOX 6 THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME ‘The Community has through its intervention stocks of various agricultural products the potential means to make a significant contribution towards the well-being of its most deprived citizens; it is in the Community interest, and in line with the objectives of the common agricultural policy, to exploit this potential on a durable basis until the stocks have been run down to a normal level [...].’ 
1234/2007. OKVIR 6 CILJI PROGRAMA „Skupnost ima prek svojih intervencijskih zalog različnih kmetijskih proizvodov možnost, da bistveno prispeva k blaginji svojih najbolj ogroženih državljanov; v interesu Skupnosti in v skladu s cilji skupne kmetijske politike je, da se ta možnost izkoristi dolgotrajno, dokler se zaloge ne znižajo na običajno raven [...].“ Posebno poročilo št.
The current programme has been in application since 1987. 
Sedanji program se uporablja od leta 1987.
The initial provisions favoured the financing of the programme using intervention stocks in line with the objectives of the common agricultural policy ‘to run down the stocks to a normal level’15. 
Začetne določbe so dajale prednost financiranju programa z intervencijskimi zalogami v skladu s cilji skupne kmetijske politike, „da se zaloge znižajo na običajno raven“15.
However, the reform of the CAP in recent years, whereby intervention measures for certain products are being phased out, and the decrease of existing intervention stocks to zero, have considerably affected the implementation of the programme: the majority of the products now have to be purchased directly on the market16. 
Vendar sta reforma skupne kmetijske politike v zadnjih letih, v skladu s katero se intervencijski ukrepi za določene proizvode postopoma ukinjajo, in dejstvo, da intervencijskih zalog praktično ni več, občutno vplivala na izvajanje programa: zdaj je treba večino proizvodov kupiti neposredno na trgu16.
Nevertheless, a tenuous link is still maintained with agricultural expenditure insofar as the products made available to deprived persons are still those derived from agricultural products eligible for intervention storage. 
Kljub temu se še vedno vzdržuje ohlapna povezava s kmetijskimi odhodki, saj se za ogrožene osebe še vedno dajejo na voljo proizvodi, ki izhajajo iz kmetijskih proizvodov, upravičenih do intervencijskega skladiščenja.
This complicates the management of the measure and restricts the choice of products to be distributed. 
To zapleta upravljanje ukrepa in omejuje izbiro proizvodov za razdeljevanje.
Finally, the nature of the aid, i.e. a contribution to alleviate poverty, is difficult to reconcile with the general nature of EU agricultural expenditure, whereby the support is targeted at farmers and/or the farming industry and eligible beneficiaries are entitled to receive a specific amount of aid. 
Kot zadnje je naravo pomoči, tj. prispevek za lajšanje revščine, težko uskladiti s splošno naravo kmetijskih odhodkov, pri kateri je podpora namenjena kmetom in/ali kmetijski panogi in so upravičenci, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, upravičeni do prejema določenega zneska pomoči.
The issue of the appropriateness of treating the expenditure for the programme as part of the Common Agricultural Policy has been raised in the Management Committee meetings. 
Na sestankih upravljalnega odbora se je pojavljalo vprašanje, ali je odhodke za ta program ustrezno obravnavati v okviru skupne kmetijske politike.
Certain Member States who do not participate in the EU food programme have voted against the approval of the annual plans in the recent years considering this aid incompatible with the CAP’s focus and type of financing17. 
Nekatere države članice, ki ne sodelujejo v programu EU za hrano, so v zadnjih letih glasovale proti odobritvi letnih načrtov, saj ta pomoč po njihovem mnenju ni združljiva z usmeritvijo skupne kmetijske politike in njeno vrsto financiranja17.
15 See Box 6. 
15 Glej okvir 6.
16 For the annual plan 2008 only sugar was available in intervention and the rest of the products had to be mobilised on the market. 
16 Za letni načrt za leto 2008 je bil v intervencijskih zalogah na voljo samo sladkor, druge proizvode pa je bilo treba dobiti na trgu.
A forecast published by DG AGRI in July 2007, ‘The Prospects For Agricultural Markets and Income in the European Union’, for the period 2007–2014, is that: — for cereals ‘public stocks would largely disappear in the early projection period’, — sugar is ‘expected to reach balance as from 2010’, — for butter ‘emptied intervention stocks in the first semester of 2007 will remain empty until the end of 2014’ and — for skimmed milk powder (SMP) ‘the market is expected to remain balanced throughout the projection period with no necessity to offer products for intervention buying-in’. 
Napoved, ki jo je julija 2007 objavil GD AGRI, „Možnosti za kmetijske trge in prihodek v Evropski uniji“, za obdobje 2007–2014, je: – za žitarice: „javne zaloge bodo v zgodnjem obdobju, ki ga zajema napoved, večinoma izginile“, – za sladkor: „pričakuje se, da bo po letu 2010 dosegel ravnovesje“, – za maslo: „izpraznjene intervencijske zaloge v prvi polovici leta 2007 bodo ostale prazne do konca leta 2014“ in – za posneto mleko v prahu: „pričakuje se, da bo trg ostal uravnovešen celotno obdobje, ki ga zajema napoved, tako ne bo treba ponujati proizvodov za intervencijske odkupe“.
17 Minutes of the meetings of the Management Committee for Cereals (adoption of the annual plan 2008): ‘DE: finds that there is no longer any consistency between the Council Regulation and the Implementing Regulation; NL, SE, UK: do not want a social measure to be financed by the CAP budget; NL: likewise because they do not want a social measure to be financed by the Community budget.’ 
17 Zapisniki sestankov upravljalnega odbora za žita (sprejetje načrta za leto 2008): „DE: ugotavlja, da Uredba Sveta in izvedbena uredba nista več skladni; NL, SE, UK: ne želijo, da se socialni ukrep financira iz proračuna SKP; NL: poleg tega noče, da bi bil socialni ukrep financiran iz proračuna Skupnosti.“ 15 Posebno poročilo št.
THE SOCIAL OBJECTIVE OF THE MEASURE IS PREDOMINANT 28. 
PREVLADUJE SOCIALNI CILJ UKREPA 28.
Although the contribution towards the well-being of the most deprived citizens was linked to the stabilisation of agricultural markets through the disposal of intervention stocks, recent developments mean that the social aim of the measure has become much more predominant. 
Čeprav je bil prispevek za blaginjo najbolj ogroženih državljanov povezan s stabilizacijo kmetijskih trgov z odstranitvijo intervencijskih zalog, nedavno dogajanje kaže, da je socialni cilj ukrepa močno prevladal.
As early as 1998, the Commission published an evaluation of the European Community Food Programmes which concluded that the social aspects of the measure were regarded as a more important objective than that as an instrument of market regulation (see Box 7). 
Komisija je že leta 1998 objavila oceno programov Evropske unije za pomoč v hrani, v kateri je ugotovila, da so socialni vidiki ukrepa veljali za pomembnejši cilj kot uporaba ukrepa kot instrumenta za uravnavanje trga (glej okvir 7).
Indeed, the evaluation considered that the effectiveness of the measure in terms of market regulation was doubtful since, on the one hand in some cases a proportion of the products withdrawn from Community stocks returned indirectly back to intervention and, on the other hand, the measure was considerably more expensive than export refunds as a method of reducing the structural surplus. 
V oceni je bilo tako dejansko izraženo mnenje, da je uspešnost ukrepa v smislu tržne regulacije vprašljiva, saj se je po eni strani v nekaterih primerih delež proizvodov, umaknjenih iz zalog Skupnosti, vrnil naravnost v intervencijo, po drugi strani pa je bil ukrep občutno dražji od izvoznih nadomestil kot metode za zmanjšanje strukturnih presežkov.
16 BOX 7 COMMISSION’S 1998 EVALUATION (MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS) ‘The social purpose of the measure is clearly set out in the regulations. [...] its usefulness in the context of persistent widespread poverty in Europe is attested by the charities [...]. 
16 OKVIR 7 OCENA KOMISIJE IZ LETA 1998 (GLAVNI ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA) „Uredbe jasno določajo socialni namen ukrepa. [...] njegovo koristnost glede na vztrajno in razširjeno revščino v Evropi potrjujejo dobrodelne organizacije [...].
When the measure was introduced another, admittedly secondary, purpose was to help run down the Community’s huge and costly intervention stocks [...]. 
Ukrep je imel ob uvedbi še en, čeprav dru-goten, namen pomagati pri zmanjšanju ogromnih in dragih intervencijskih zalog Skupnosti [...].
‘The Member States [...] are well able to make effective use of the resources [...]. On the other hand, there is some doubt about the effectiveness of the measure in terms of market regulation. [...] in some cases, possibly a large proportion of the products withdrawn from Community stocks returns indirectly to intervention’. ‘While there is no doubt that it [the aid] is an efficient instrument of social aid, it is considerably more expensive than export refunds as a method of reducing the structural surplus [...]’. ‘[...] in view of Europe’s serious poverty problem and of the unquestionable usefulness of the aid to the needy, continuation of the measure should certainly be recommended and possibly even an increase in the financial resources devoted to it. [...] 
Ukrep lahko torej še vedno velja za instrument tržnega uravnavanja.“ „Države članice [...] so sposobne učinkovito uporabiti sredstva [...].Po drugi strani pa se pojavljajo dvomi o uspešnosti ukrepa pri uravnavanju trga. [...] v nekaterih primerih se morda velik delež proizvodov, ki se umaknejo iz zalog Skupnosti, posredno vrne v intervencijo.“ „Čeprav je (pomoč) nedvomno učinkovit instrument socialne pomoči, je precej dražja od izvoznih nadomestil kot metode za zniževanje strukturnih presežkov [...].“ „[...] ker je problem revščine v Evropi resen in ker je pomoč za tiste, ki jo potrebujejo, nedvomno koristna, je vsekakor treba priporočiti nadaljevanje ukrepa in mogoče celo povečati finančna sredstva, ki so na voljo zanj. [...]
The Council has made it clear [...] that the social aspects were regarded as more important than the role of the measure as an instrument of market regulation.’ 
Svet je jasno pokazal [...], da so socialni vidiki veljali za pomembnejše kot vloga ukrepa kot instrumenta za uravnavanje trga.“ Posebno poročilo št.
A similar perception of the social aim of the measure is shared by the managing authorities of the Member States visited during the audit, which expressed the importance of the social dimension of the programme being well coordinated at national level. 
Socialno usmeritev ukrepa podobno zaznavajo tudi organi upravljanja v državah članicah, obiskani med revizijo, ki so povedali, da je pomembno, da je socialna razsežnost programa dobro koordinirana na nacionalni ravni.
Furthermore, as recently as April 2006, the European Parliament adopted a declaration ‘on supplying approved charities working to implement the European food aid programme for the most deprived’. 
Poleg tega je Evropski parlament nedolgo nazaj, aprila 2006, sprejel izjavo „o oskrbi odobrenih dobrodelnih združenj, ki so zadolžena za izvajanje evropskega programa pomoči v hrani najrevnejšim“.
In its declaration, the European Parliament regarded the measure as a part of the aim of reducing poverty, and invited the Commission and the Council to maintain and increase the aid with certain implementing adaptations (see Box 8). 
Evropski parlament je v svoji izjavi ukrep obravnaval kot del prizadevanj za zmanjšanje revščine ter Komisijo in Svet pozval, da ohranita in povečata pomoč z nekaterimi prilagoditvami izvajanja (glej okvir 8).
17 18 Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, BOX 8 EP’S DECLARATION MAIN POINTS • recognise the fact that there are undernourished people in the European Union and acknowledge the need to meet their food requirements, • place the European food aid programme on a permanent footing and provide a global multiannual budget allocation, • open the measure up to new sectors such as pork, poultry and eggs, • include in the programme innovative measures to ensure the distribution of balanced food rations, • regard food aid as part of the aim of reducing poverty, • modify the rules so as to allow: • for the stocks reserved for the programme to be build up, i.e. set aside for and allocated to the most deprived, • for the bartering procedure to be extended, • for products that are not available as part of intervention stocks to be bought on the Community market. 
1234/2007, uvodna izjava št. 18. 17 OKVIR 8 POGLAVITNI POUDARKI IZ DEKLARACIJE EP • priznanje, da v Evropski uniji obstaja podhranjeno prebivalstvo in da je treba zadovoljiti njegove prehrambne potrebe, • potrditev evropskega programa pomoči v hrani kot stalnega programa ter zagotovitev sredstev za večletno obdobje, • razširitev ukrepa na nove skupine živil, kot so svinjina, perutnina in jajca, • vključitev novih ukrepov v program, ki bodo imeli za cilj delitev uravnoteženih obrokov hrane, • obravnava pomoči v hrani kot ukrepa, katerega cilj je zmanjšanje revščine, • sprememba postopkov, tako da bodo omogočali: • povečanje zalog, ki so rezervirane za program, torej namenjene in razdeljene najrevnejšim, • razširitev postopka blagovne menjave, • nakup izdelkov, ki niso na voljo v okviru intervencijskih zalog, na trgu Skupnosti.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER SOCIAL POLICY MEASURES SHOULD BE IMPROVED 32. 
IZBOLJŠATI JE TREBA USKLAJENOST Z DRUGIMI UKREPI SOCIALNE POLITIKE 32.
The legislator clearly established that the food aid programme should be regarded as a contribution, albeit significant, towards the well-being of its most deprived citizens19 (see Box 6). 
Zakonodajalec je jasno določil, da je treba program pomoči v hrani obravnavati kot pomemben prispevek k blaginji najbolj ogroženih drža-vljanov19 (glej okvir 6).
Hence, this contribution should be coordinated and create synergies with the other policies, schemes and actions set up at both Community and Member States levels to meet better the needs of the most deprived persons. 
Zaradi tega je treba ta prispevek usklajevati in ustvarjati sinergije z drugimi politikami, programi in ukrepi, vzpostavljenimi na ravni Skupnosti in držav članic, da bi bolje izpolnjevali potrebe najbolj ogroženih oseb.
At the level of the Member States audited, the managing authorities are the paying agencies for agricultural expenditure. 
Na ravni revidiranih držav članic so organi upravljanja plačilne agencije za kmetijske odhodke.
With the exception of France, in the Member States audited there was no evidence of close cooperation between the paying agency and other key actors for social actions such as the ministries of social affairs. 
Z izjemo Francije ni bilo v revidiranih državah članicah nobenega dokaza o tesnem sodelovanju plačilne agencije in drugih ključnih akterjev za socialne ukrepe, kot so ministrstva za socialne zadeve.
Such cooperation is necessary for better understanding and meeting the needs of the charitable organisations and of the deprived persons. 
Takšno sodelovanje je potrebno za boljše razumevanje in izpolnjevanje potreb dobrodelnih organizacij in ogroženih oseb.
THE MEANS AND METHODS EMPLOYED: ARE THE MEANS COMMENSURATE WITH THE OBJECTIVES SOUGHT AND ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENTED? 
UPORABLJENA SREDSTVA IN METODE: ALI SREDSTVA USTREZAJO ZASTAVLJENIM CILJEM IN SE USTREZNO IZVAJAJO?
BETTER TARGETING OF RECIPIENTS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE ‘SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION’ LOW IMPACT OF THE EU AID 34. 
ZA DOSEGO „POMEMBNEGA PRISPEVKA“ JE TREBA BOLJE IZBIRATI PREJEMNIKE MAJHEN UČINEK POMOČI EU 34.
The large number of potential beneficiaries and the relatively low level of available resources mean that beneficiaries need to be targeted to allow the measure to have any significant impact on the target population. 
Veliko število možnih upravičencev ter relativno nizka raven sredstev, ki so na voljo, pomenita, da je treba upravičence izbirati bolj natančno, če naj ima ukrep kakršen koli pomemben vpliv na ciljno populacijo.
As shown in table in Annex II the budgetary appropriations per potential beneficiary amounts to about six euro per person per year. 
Kot je razvidno iz tabele v Prilogi II, znašajo odobrena proračunska sredstva na potencialnega upravičenca letno okoli šest EUR na osebo.
On the other hand the Commission, in its impact assessment, indicates that in 2006 more than 13 million people in 15 Member States benefited from the programme and estimates that the cost of a single meal offered by charities is at least two euro. 
Po drugi strani Komisija v svoji oceni učinka navaja, da je v letu 2006 program koristil več kot 13 milijonom ljudi v 15 državah članicah, in ocenjuje, da je strošek enega obroka, ki ga ponudijo dobrodelne organizacije, najmanj dva EUR.
This implies that the programme contributes to the distribution of a maximum of three meals per year for each potential deprived person, or an average of 12 meals per year for each actual beneficiary of the aid. 
To pomeni, da program prispeva k razdelitvi največ treh obrokov na leto za vsako potencialno ogroženo osebo ali povprečno 12 obrokov na leto za vsakega dejanskega upravičenca do pomoči.
19 Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87. 
19 Uredba (EGS) št. 3730/87.
While the EU programme in certain Member States accounts for more than 50 % of the food distributed to deprived citizens (see Box 5), the Court considers that a programme which offers, as a maximum, the equivalent of one meal per month to its beneficiaries on average is unlikely to meet the objectives of the legislator, namely that of making a ‘significant contribution towards the well-being of its most deprived citizens’20. 
Čeprav program EU v nekaterih državah članicah pokriva več kot 50 % hrane, ki se razdeli ogroženim državljanom (glej okvir 5), Sodišče meni, da program, ki svojim upravičencem v povprečju ponuja največ en obrok na mesec, najbrž ne izpolnjuje ciljev zakonodajalca, namreč da „bistveno prispeva k blaginji svojih najbolj ogroženih državljanov“20.
In this respect, it would ideally be necessary to improve selection criteria and or priorities amongst potential beneficiaries as recommended by the impact assessment21; otherwise the contribution of the programme to the well-being of the most deprived persons will inevitably be negligible. 
Glede na vse to bi bilo v idealnem primeru treba izboljšati izbirna merila in/ali prednostni vrstni red potencialnih upravičencev, kot je priporočeno v oceni učinka21, sicer bo prispevek programa k blaginji najbolj ogroženih oseb nujno zanemarljiv.