natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Annex 1.1, Part 2, describes the Court’s overall audit approach and methodology. For the audit of policy group Agriculture and Natural Resources the following specific points should be noted: — the audit involved the examination of a sample of 238 payments, comprising 146 payments for EAGF, 80 payments for EAFRD and 12 payments as regards Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and Health and Consumer Protection, all representing interim and final payments, — the assessment of systems covered for EAGF IACS audits, selected using a combination of materiality, risk and random (MUS) criteria, in 5 paying agencies in three Member States applying the SPS — Germany (Sachsen and Niedersachsen), Spain (Castilla-La Mancha and Extre­ madura) and United Kingdom (Wales) — and in one Member State (France) the control system relating to the measure ‘restructuring of the sugar industry’. 
Obseg revizije in revizijski pristop 3.16 Splošni revizijski pristop in metodologija Sodišča sta opisana v delu 2 Priloge 1.1. Glede revizije skupine politik kmetijstvo in naravni viri je treba omeniti naslednje: — pri reviziji je bil pregledan vzorec 238 plačil, od katerih so vsa vmesna in končna plačila in ki vsebujejo 146 plačil za EKJS, 80 plačil za EKSRP in 12 plačil za okolje, pomorske zadeve in ribištvo ter zdravje in varstvo potrošnikov, — ocena sistemov je pri EKJS zajela revizije v zvezi z IAKS, ki so bile izbrane s kombinacijo meril pomembnosti, tveganja in naključnih meril (metoda vzorčenja po denarni enoti), v petih plačilnih agencijah v treh državah članicah, ki upora­ bljajo SEP (v Nemčiji (Saška in Spodnja Saška), Španiji (Kastilija in Manča ter Estremadura) in v Združenem kralje­ stvu (Wales)), v eni državi članici (Francija) pa se je pregled nanašal na kontrolni sistem za ukrep „prestrukturiranje industrije sladkorja“.
For Rural Development, the Court randomly selected and tested the supervisory and control systems in Germany (Meck­ lenburg-Vorpommern), United Kingdom (Scotland), Romania, Poland, Portugal, Italy (Toscana), Latvia and France. 
Pri razvoju podeželja je Sodišče naključno izbralo in preizkusilo nadzorne in kontrolne sisteme v Nemčiji (Mecklenburg-Predpomerjansko), Zdru­ ženem kraljestvu (Škotska), Romuniji, na Poljskem, Portu­ galskem, v Italiji (Toskana), Latviji in Franciji.
For Environment the Court tested the internal control system of DG ENV, — a follow-up of weaknesses related to Land Parcel Identifi­ cation System (LPIS) and on-the-spot inspections reported under DAS 2008 and 2009 was carried out for three paying agencies: in Greece, Bulgaria and Romania, _____________ (15) Redeployed for other programmes through a Global Transfer of appropriations. 
Pri okolju je Sodišče preizkusilo sistem notranjega kontroliranja v GD ENV, — za tri plačilne agencije je bilo izvedeno spremljanje popravnih učinkov v zvezi s slabostmi, povezanimi z iden­ tifikacijskim sistemom za zemljišča (LPIS) in inšpekcijskimi pregledi na kraju samem, o katerih se je poročalo v DAS za leti 2008 in 2009: v Grčiji, Bolgariji in Romuniji, _____________ (15) Prerazporejeno za druge programe z globalno prerazporeditvijo proračunskih sredstev.
EN 10.11.2011 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 77 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S — in addition to the audits of payments and systems mentioned above, for the Netherlands and the Czech Republic co-ordinated audits were undertaken with the Dutch and Czech Supreme Audit Institutions. 
SL 1. 10.
In the Netherlands, the audit involved the examination of an addi­ tional sample of 55 payments of which 53 were made under EAGF measures and two related to Rural Devel­ opment expenditure and an assessment of the relevant supervisory and control systems. 
Na Nizo­ zemskem se je revizija nanašala na pregled dodatnega vzorca 55 plačil, od katerih jih je bilo 53 izvršenih v okviru ukrepov EKJS, dve pa sta bili povezani z odhodki za razvoj podeželja, in na oceno ustreznih nadzornih in kontrolnih sistemov.
In the Czech Republic the audit involved the examination of 30 payments related to four measures of the Rural Development programme and an assessment of the relevant supervisory and control systems. 
Na Češkem je revizija zajemala pregled 30 plačil, povezanih s štirimi ukrepi programa za razvoj podeželja, in oceno ustreznih nadzornih in kontrolnih sistemov.
The results of the examination of these additional samples are included in the error rate calculation (16), — with respect to cross compliance, the Court limited its testing to GAEC obligations (minimum soil cover, avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation) for which evidence can be obtained and a conclusion reached at the time of the audit visit. Certain statutory management requirements (animal identification and regis­ tration) were tested in respect of EAFRD payments. 
Rezultati pregleda teh dodatnih vzorcev so zajeti v izračun stopnje napake (16), — pri navzkrižni skladnosti je Sodišče svoje preizkušanje omejilo na obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz standardov za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje (minimalna talna odeja, preprečevanje širitve nezaželene vegetacije), za katere je mogoče v času revizijskega obiska pridobiti dokaze in priti do zaključka.
Furthermore, in the context of its systems audits, the Court has examined the implementation (at national level) of the GAEC standards and the control systems implemented by Member States. 
Poleg tega je Sodišče v okviru svojih revizij sistemov pregledalo izvajanje (na nacionalni ravni) standardov za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje ter kontrolne sisteme, ki so jih uporabljale države članice.
When non-compliance is detected it is currently not included in the error rate calcu­ lation, — the review of the Commission’s management represen­ tations covered the annual activity reports of DG AGRI, DG CLIMA, DG ENV, DG MARE and DG SANCO, — in addition, in order to assess the basis for the Commission’s financial clearance decisions the Court reviewed 61 of the certification bodies’ certificates and reports related to 56 paying agencies. _____________ (16) In arriving at its estimate of error, the Court weighted the results of the Dutch and Czech samples of transactions to reflect the share of CAP spending which took place in the Netherlands and the Czech Republic respectively. 
Morebitne ugotovljene neskladnosti se ne vključijo v izračun stopnje napake, — pregled poslovodskih predstavitev Komisije je zajel letna poročila o dejavnostih GD AGRI, GD CLIMA, GD ENV, GD MARE in GD SANCO, — poleg tega je Sodišče pregledalo 61 potrdil in poročil certi­ fikacijskih organov, ki so se nanašala na 56 plačilnih agencij, da bi ocenilo osnovo za sklepe Komisije o finančni potrditvi. _____________ (16) Sodišču je pri pripravi svoje ocene napake ponderiralo rezultate nizozemskih in čeških vzorcev transakcij, da so odražali delež porabe za SKP na Nizozemskem in na Češkem.
The most likely error resulting from transaction testing estimated by the Court is 2,3%(17). The Court also identified irregular advance payments to Member States of 401 million euro (equivalent to 0,7 % of total payments for the year) by the Commission (see paragraph 3.22) (18). 
Na podlagi tega preizkušanja je ocenilo, da je najverjetnejša stopnja napake 2,3 % (17), ugotovilo pa je tudi, da je Komisija državam članicam izplačala nepravilna predplačila v višini 401 milijona EUR (kar je enakovredno 0,7 % skupnih plačil v letu) (glej odstavek 3.22) (18).
3.18. TheCourt’sauditconfirmedpreviousyears’results that frequency and impact of errors in payments were not distributed evenly across all the policy areas. 
3.18 Revizija Sodišča je potrdila rezultate iz prejšnjih let, glede na katere pogostost in učinek napak v plačilih nista bila enakomerno porazdeljena po vseh področjih politik.
The Court notes that Rural Development expenditure is particularly prone to error. 
Sodišče ugotavlja, da so napake še posebno pogoste pri odhodkih za razvoj podeželja.
Direct payments covered by IACS, by contrast, were not found to contain material error. 
Nasprotno v neposrednih plačilih, ki jih pokriva IAKS, niso bile ugotovljene pomembne napake.
In the EAGF, out of 146 transactions sampled, 39 (27 %) were affected by errors. 
3.19 VEKJSsonapakevplivalena39(27%)od146tran­ sakcij v vzorcu.
29 (74 %) of these transactions were affected by quantifiable errors. 
Na 29 (74 %) od teh transakcij so vplivale količinsko opredeljive napake.
With regard to Rural Development expenditure, out of 80 transactions sampled, 40 (50 %) were affected by errors. 
Pri odhodkih za razvoj podeželja so napake vplivale na 40 (50 %) od 80 transakcij v vzorcu.
21 (52 %) of these transactions were affected by quantifiable errors. 
Na 21 (52 %) od teh transakcij so vplivale količinsko opredeljive napake.
As regards Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and Health and Consumer Protection, out of 12 transactions sampled, 8 (67 %) were affected by errors. 
Na področjih okolja, pomorskih zadev in ribištva ter zdravja in varstva potrošnikov so napake vplivale na 8 (67 %) od 12 transakcij v vzorcu.
4 (50 %) of these transactions were affected by quan­ tifiable errors. 
Na 4 (50 %) od teh transakcij so vplivale količinsko opredeljive napake.
3.20. In2010,outofthetransactionsaffectedbyerror54 (62 %) were affected by quantifiable errors concerning eligi­ bility and, mostly, accuracy (97% in EAGF and 52% for EAFRD), particularly due to over-declarations of eligible land. 
3.20 Leta2010sona54(62%)transakcijodtistih,na katere so vplivale napake, vplivale količinsko opredeljive napake v zvezi z upravičenostjo in predvsem s točnostjo (97% v EKJS in 52% za EKSRP), zlasti zaradi prijavljanja prevelikih upravičenih zemljišč.
3.21. ExamplesoferrorsfoundbytheCourtareoutlined hereafter (see example 3.1): _____________ (17) The Court calculates its estimate of error from a representative statistical sample. 
3.21 Primeri napak, ki jih je odkrilo Sodišče, so orisani v nadaljevanju (glej primer 3.1). _____________ (17) Sodišče izračuna svojo oceno napake na podlagi reprezentativnega statističnega vzorca.
The figure quoted is the best estimate (known as the MLE). The Court has 95 % confidence that the rate of error in the population lies between 0,8 % and 3,8 % (the lower and upper error limits respectively). 
Navedeni številčni podatek je „najboljša ocena“ (znana kot najverjetnejša stopnja napake (MLE)). Gotovost Sodišča, da je stopnja napake v populaciji med (spodnjo mejo) 0,8 % in (zgornjo mejo) 3,8 %, je 95-odstotna.
(18) Under the Court’s current approach these advance payments were not part of the sampled population. 
(18) Pri sedanjem pristopu Sodišča ta predplačila niso bila zajeta v vzorčno populacijo.
Although irregular these payments have no effect on whether correct amounts are paid to final beneficiaries. 
Čeprav so nepravilna, ne vplivajo na to, ali se končnim upravičencem izplačajo pravi zneski.
T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S 3.17. The Court’s conclusion for Agriculture and Natural Resources confirms the positive trend that in the past years the most likely error rate is close to the materiality threshold of 2 %. 
O D G O VO R I KO M I S I J E 3.17 Sklep Sodišča glede kmetijstva in naravnih virov potrjuje pozitivni trend, da se je v preteklih letih najverjetnejša stopnja napake približala 2-odstotnemu pragu pomembnosti.
The Commission further notes that for EAGF expenditure, which in 2010 accounted for 77 % of total expenditure under this Chapter, the most likely error is well below the materiality threshold and that for direct payments covered by the IACS it is even lower. 
Komisija nadalje ugota­ vlja, da je pri odhodkih EKJS, ki so leta 2010 znašali 77 % skupnih odhodkov iz tega poglavja, najverjetnejša napaka precej pod pragom pomembnosti, pri neposrednih plačilih, ki jih zajema IAKS, pa je še manjša.
The 401 million euro advance payments do not represent irregular payments to final beneficiaries. 
Predplačila v znesku 401 milijon EUR niso nepravilna plačila končnim upravičencem.
Moreover, the recovery of the amounts in question is ongoing and will be completed by the end of 2011. 
Poleg tega je izterjava zadevnih zneskov v teku in bo zaključena do konca leta 2011.
The Commission shares the Court’s view that some areas of rural development expenditure are affected by a higher incidence of errors, but considers that the supervisory and control systems are constantly improving. 
3.18 Komisija se strinja s Sodiščem, da so na nekaterih področjih odhodkov za razvoj podeželja napake pogostejše, vendar meni, da se nadzorni in kontrolni sistemi stalno izboljšujejo.
The Commission considers that as a result the error rate is decreasing in this area. 3.19. 
Komisija meni, da se na podlagi tega stopnja napake na tem področju zmanjšuje.
The Commission notes that most of the quantifiable errors are relatively small in financial terms and mainly concern small differences in the re-measurement of parcels carried out by the Court (see paragraph 3.20). 
3.19 Komisija ugotavlja, da je večina količinsko opredeljivih napak v finančnem smislu razmeroma majhnih in se nanašajo zlasti na majhna odstopanja pri ponovnem merjenju parcel, ki ga je opra­ vilo Sodišče (glej odstavek 3.20).
EN 10.11.2011 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 79 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S Example 3.1 Example of eligibility error — EAGF A payment was made to the national authorities of a Member State of an amount of 4,3 million euro for 1 965 tonnes of intervention butter (19) delivered as a means of payment (bartering) to successful bidders (20) in a second Member State under the EU food aid programme for deprived persons. 
10.11.2011 UradnilistEvropskeunije 79 U G O T O V I T V E S O D I Š Č A O D G O VO R I KO M I S I J E Primer 3.1 Primer 3.1 SL Primer napake v zvezi z upravičenostjo za EKJS Nacionalnim organom države članice je bil izplačan znesek 4,3 milijona EUR za 1 965 ton intervencijskega masla (19), dobavljenega kot plačilno sredstvo (blagovna menjava) uspešnim ponudnikom (20) v drugi državi članici v okviru programa EU za pomoč v hrani ogroženim osebam.
In exchange for the butter the successful bidders (operators) had offered to supply various types of cheese and other milk products to deprived persons. 
Uspešni ponudniki (subjekti) so v zameno za maslo ponudili, da bodo ogroženim osebam dobavili različne vrste sirov in drugih mlečnih izdelkov.
Governing EU rules (21) provide that the operator is not allowed to put the butter on the market in the Member State where it was placed in intervention but must transfer the product to the second Member State: the objective of this requirement is to prevent the butter returning to the Member State where it was bought into intervention for market management purposes (22). 
Veljavna pravila EU določajo (21), da subjekt masla ne sme dati na trg v državi članici, v kateri je bilo dano v intervencijo, temveč mora izdelek prepeljati v drugo državo članico. Cilj te zahteve je preprečiti, da bi se maslo vrnilo v državo članico, v kateri je bil opravljen intervencijski nakup zaradi upravljanja trga (22).
The butter from intervention had been transferred to the border of the second Member State (23) where the EU control documents were cleared. 
Intervencijsko maslo je bilo prepeljano na mejo druge države članice(23), kjer je kontrolne dokumente Unije potrdila carina.
The bulk of the butter, however, was not unloaded but immediately transported back to the original Member State where it was offered for sale on the domestic market in circumvention of the EU rules (24). 
Vendar večina masla ni bila raztovorjena, temveč takoj prepeljana nazaj v prvo državo članico, kjer so ga dali naprodaj na domačem trgu, s tem pa obšli pravila EU (24).
Example of accuracy error — EAGF The Court found that SPS payments to around 12 500 individual beneficiaries were made on the basis of an outdated LPIS leading to an overall overpayment of 11 million euro. 
Primer napake v zvezi s točnostjo za EKJS Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so bila plačila iz SEP približno 12 500 posameznim upravičencem izvršena na podlagi zastarelega LPIS, kar je privedlo do preplačila v višini 11 milijonov EUR.
Contrary to EU legislation the national authorities decided to charge the amount to the national budget rather than recovering overpayments from farmers, thus granting unapproved national aid. 
Nacionalni organi so se v nasprotju z zakonodajo EU odločili, da bodo za znesek bremenili nacionalni proračun, namesto da bi preplačila izterjali od kmetov, na ta način pa so dodelili neodobreno nacionalno pomoč.
T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S Example 3.1 Example of eligibility error — EAGF The Commission considers that the objective of the scheme — which is that food be delivered free of charge to most deprived persons — was fully achieved in this case, and the value of the cheese and butter provided to these persons exceeded the financial charge to the EU budget. 
Primer napake v zvezi z upravičenostjo za EKJS Komisija meni, da je bil cilj sheme, tj. brezplačna dobava hrane najbolj ogroženim osebam, v tem primeru v celoti dosežen ter da je vrednost sira in masla, ki sta bila dobavljena tem osebam, presegla finančno obremenitev proračuna EU.
It further considers that this case primarily concerns the effectiveness of a specific rule in the 2009 scheme which did not prohibit the re-transfer of the products, as in this case, to the first Member State by another operator, in line with the principle of free movement of goods. 
Poleg tega meni, da se ta primer nanaša zlasti na učinkovitost posebnega pravila iz sheme za leto 2009, ki v nasprotju s tem primerom in v skladu z načelom prostega pretoka blaga drugim gospodarskim udeležencem ni prepovedovalo ponovnega prenosa izdelkov v prvo državo članico.
Therefore, although the underlying purpose of that provision was not fully achieved, the Commission sees no basis for recovery of the amounts in question. 
Zato Komisija ni ugotovila razloga za izterjavo zadevnih zneskov, čeprav osnovni namen zadevne določbe ni bil v celoti dosežen.
The problem was limited to the 2009 programme since no similar rules were included in the subsequent programmes. 
Težava je bila omejena na program za leto 2009, ker poznejši programi niso vključevali nobenih podobnih pravil.
The Commission will, however, consider options to enhance the transparency of bartering arrangements, which are an essential component of the aid scheme for most deprived people and which the Commission therefore intends to continue in the future. 
Kljub temu bo Komisija proučila možnosti za povečanje preglednosti mehanizmov blagovne menjave, ki so bistven sestavni del sheme pomoči za najbolj ogrožene osebe in jih Komisija namerava izvajati tudi v prihodnje.
Example of accuracy error — EAGF The Commission is aware of these deficiencies in the LPIS in question and is pursuing them through conformity clearance procedures. 
Primer napake v zvezi s točnostjo za EKJS Komisija se zaveda pomanjkljivosti zadevnega LPIS in jih obravnava na podlagi postopkov potrditve skladnosti.
It should be noted however, that according to Article 73(4) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, the repayment obligation of the farmer shall not apply if the payment was made by error of the competent authority or of another authority and if the error could not reasonably have been detected by the farmer. 
Vendar je treba navesti, da se v skladu s členom 73(4) Uredbe (ES) št.
EN 80 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 10.11.2011 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S Examples of eligibility error — EAFRD Disregard of procurement rules: An EAFRD project for the construction of a cycle path in which the beneficiary directly awarded part of the works. 
SL 80 UradnilistEvropskeunije 10.11.2011 U G O T O V I T V E S O D I Š Č A Primeri napake v zvezi z upravičenostjo za EKSRP Neupoštevanje pravil za oddajo javnega naročila: projekt EKSRP za gradnjo kolesarske poti, pri katerem je upravičenec neposredno oddal del gradbenih del.
Due to the absence of a public procurement procedure, part of the payments related to this contract is irregular. 
Ker ni bilo postopka oddaje javnega naročila, je del plačil, povezanih s to pogodbo, nepravilen.
Non-respect of specific eligibility criteria: a payment was made under the rural development measure ‘improvement of the economic value of forests’. 
Neupoštevanje posebnih meril za upravičenost: izvršeno je bilo plačilo v okviru ukrepa za razvoj podeželja „izboljšanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov“.
The aim of the project was the ‘thinning’ of the tree density of the forest in order to improve the quality and thus the value of the timber. 
Cilj projekta je bilo „redčenje“ gostote dreves v gozdu, da bi se izboljšala kakovost in s tem tudi vrednost lesa.
Two of the eligibility criteria which the beneficiary had to fulfil were: 1. the density of the trees before thinning should be at least 800 stems per hectare and 2. the works should be carried out between October and January so as to reduce plant health risks. 
Dve od meril za upravičenost, ki bi jih moral izpolniti upravičenec, sta bili: 1. gostota dreves pred redčenjem bi morala biti vsaj 800 debel na hektar in 2. dela bi morala biti opravljena med oktobrom in januarjem, da bi se zmanjšala nevarnost za zdravstveno varstvo rastlin.
These two eligibility criteria were not met: the density of the trees prior to the thinning exercise was 600, and the works were carried out between March and May. 
Ti merili za upravičenost nista bili izpolnjeni. Gostota dreves pred redčenjem je bila 600, dela pa so bila izvedena med marcem in majem.
The payment is therefore irregular. 
Zato je plačilo nepravilno.
Example of error in Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Health and Consumer Protection DG ENV incorrectly deducted eligible personnel costs for a LIFE III project. 
Primer napake na področjih okolja, pomorskih zadev in ribištva ter zdravja in varstva potrošnikov GD ENV je nepravilno odbil upravičene stroške dela za projekt LIFE III.
This was partly offset by incorrectly accepting salaries paid outside the eligible project period. 
To se je delno izravnalo z nepravilno odobritvijo plač, izplačanih zunaj upravičenega projektnega obdobja.
From 2007 to 2009, the Council took several decisions to increase the Rural Development budget by 5,43 billion euro mainly to respond to ‘new challenges’ (e.g. climate change, protection of biodiversity, ...). 
3.22 Svet je v obdobju od leta 2007 do 2009 sprejel več sklepov, s katerimi je povečal proračun za razvoj podeželja za 5,43 milijarde EUR, predvsem za odzivanje na nove izzive (npr. podnebne spremembe, zaščita biotske raznovrstnosti ...).
Out of this amount, 3 billion euro represented a transfer of funds from direct aid measures to rural development measures (‘modulation’). 
Tri milijarde sredstev od tega zneska so bile prenesene z ukrepov za neposredno pomoč na ukrepe za razvoj podeželja („modulacija“).
As a result, Member States adjusted their rural development programmes upwards and, in 2010, the Commission paid out advances against these additional programmes for an amount of 401 million euro. 
Posledično so države članice svoje programe za razvoj podeželja prilagodile navzgor, Komisija pa je leta 2010 izplačala predplačila za te dodatne programe v znesku 401 milijona EUR.
However, the legislation does not provide for such additional advances (pre-financing is only authorised when the rural development programmes are adopted at the beginning of the programming period, i.e. 2007-2008, not when they are revised). 
Vendar zakonodaja ne določa takšnih dodatnih predplačil (predfinanciranje se odobri le ob sprejetju programov za razvoj podeželja na začetku programskega obdobja, torej v obdobju 2007–2008, ne pa tudi ob njihovi spremembi).
In addition, the legis­ lation explicitly forbids pre-financing of modulation funds. 
Poleg tega zakonodaja izrecno prepoveduje pred­ financiranje iz sredstev modulacije.
Therefore, there was no legal basis for this payment of 401 million euro. 
Zato ni bilo pravne podlage za to plačilo v višini 401 milijona EUR.