natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
We also recommended that Member States have coherent regional, national and supranational plans for airport devel‐ opment to avoid overcapacity, duplication and uncoordinated investments in airport infrastructure. 
Priporočili smo tudi, naj države članice pripravijo usklajene regionalne, nacionalne in nadnacionalne načrte za razvoj letališč, da ne bi prišlo do presežnih zmogljivosti, podvajanja in neusklajenih naložb v letališko infrastrukturo.
The Commission responded with an assurance that lessons have been learned. 
Komisija nam je v odziv zagotovila, da so bila zbrana nova spoznanja.
As a result it has put into action a radically different approach in the relevant legislation for the 2014–20 programme period. 
Tako je v zakonodaji za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 uvedla močno spremenjen pristop.
The report was presented to the European Parliament, which fully endorsed the ECA’s conclusions and recommendations. 
Poročilo je bilo predstavljeno Evropskemu parlamentu, ki je v celoti podprl zaključke in priporočila Sodišča.
The publication of the report was met with a high level of media interest. 
Objava poročila je bila sprejeta z velikim zanimanjem medijev.
The media coverage was largest in Spain, but also included headlines in major international newspapers, television coverage and in social media. 
Največ medijskega poročanja je bilo v Španiji, toda zajemalo je tudi naslove v velikih mednarodnih časopisih, televizijsko spremljanje in družbene medije.
From left to right: Afonso de Castro Malheiro, Jasmine Mitterbuchner, Patrick Weldon, Mircea Radulescu, Pietro Puricella, Joël Costantzer, George Pufan (ECA Member responsible for the report), Fernando Pascual Gil, Luc T’Joen, Tomasz Plebanowicz, Lorenzo Pirelli, Efstratios Varetidis, Jelena Magermane, Erki Must. 
Od leve proti desni: Afonso de Castro Malheiro, Jasmine Mitterbuchner, Patrick Weldon, Mircea Radulescu, Pietro Puricella, Joël Costantzer, George Pufan (član Sodišča, pristojen za poročilo), Fernando Pascual Gil, Luc T’Joen, Tomasz Plebanowicz, Lorenzo Pirelli, Efstratios Varetidis, Jelena Magermane, Erki Must.
Our activities 22 Sustainable growth: natural resources The EU has extensive policy responsibility for agriculture and rural development, fisheries and the environment. 
Naše dejavnosti 22 Trajnostna rast: naravni viri EU je odgovorna za vrsto politik na področjih kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja, ribištva in okolja.
Planned expenditure for 2014–20 — at current prices — is €420 billion, representing 39 % of the total EU budget. 
Načrtovani odhodki za obdobje 2014–2020 (v tekočih cenah) znašajo 420 milijard EUR, kar je 39 % skupnega proračuna EU.
Three quarters of the spending involves direct payments to farmers and support for agricultural markets through the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) — the ‘first pillar’ of the common agricultural policy (CAP). 
Tri četrtine porabe se nanašajo na neposredna plačila kmetom in podporo kmetijskim trgom v okviru Evropskega kmetijskega jamstvenega sklada (EKJS), prvega stebra skupne kmetijske politike.
A further fifth of spending goes to EU support for rural development, which is financed from the Europe‐ an Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), the ‘second pillar’ of the CAP. 
Petina porabe pa je namenjena podpori EU za razvoj podeželja, ki se financira iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP), drugega stebra skupne kmetijske politike.
Agriculture and rural devel‐ opment are under shared management by the Commission and Member States. 
Kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja deljeno upravljajo Komisija in države članice.
During 2014, the ECA produced the following special reports in this area. • Integration of EU water policy objectives with the CAP: a partial success (4/2014) — assessed whether the objectives of EU water policy had been successfully integrated into the CAP. 
Leta 2014 je Sodišče za to področje pripravilo naslednja posebna poročila: • Vključitev ciljev vodne politike EU v SKP: delni uspeh (4/2014) – V poročilu je bilo ocenjeno, ali so bili cilji vodne politike EU uspešno vključeni v skupno kmetijsko politiko (SKP).
The audit found that the EU has been only par‐ tially successful in integrating water policy goals into the CAP. 
Z revizijo je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila EU pri vključevanju ciljev vodne politike v SKP le delno uspešna.
There are weaknesses in the two integration instruments (cross‐compliance and rural development) and delays and weaknesses in the implementation of the water framework directive. 
Pri dveh instrumentih za vključevanje (navzkrižna skladnost in razvoj podeželja) obstajajo slabosti, pri izvajanju okvirne direktive o vodah pa zamude in slabosti.
The CAP instruments have to date had a positive impact in supporting the policy objectives to improve water quantity and quality. However, these instruments are limited relative to the policy ambitions set for the CAP. 
Instrumenta SKP sta imela doslej pozitiven učinek pri podpiranju ciljev politike za izboljšanje količine in kakovosti vode, vendar sta omejena glede na cilje politike, določene za SKP.
For example, neither of these two instruments allows for the full implementation of the ‘polluter pays’ princi‐ ple when spending CAP funds. 
Na primer, nobeden od njiju ne omogoča polnega izvajanja načela „onesnaževalec plača” pri porabi sredstev SKP.
Furthermore there is insufficient knowledge, at the level of the EU institutions and in the Member States, about the pressures placed on water by agricultural activi‐ ties and how those pressures are evolving. 
Poleg tega institucije EU in države članice niso dovolj seznanjene z obremenitvami voda zaradi kmetijskih dejavnosti ter z razvojem teh obremenitev.
Protecting the quality of Europe’s water resources is a priority for the EU. 
Varovanje kakovosti evropskih vodnih virov je prednostna naloga EU.
Agriculture, as one of the main users and polluters of water, has a major role to play in sustainable management of this resource. 
Kmetijstvo ima kot eden od glavnih uporabnikov in onesnaževalcev vode ključno vlogo pri trajnostnem gospodarjenju z vodami.
The CAP represents just under 40 % of the EU budget (over €50 billion for 2014), and through it the EU seeks to influence agricultural practices affecting water. 
SKP pomeni skoraj 40 % proračuna EU (več kot 50 milijard EUR za leto 2014). S SKP želi EU vplivati na kmetijske prakse, ki vplivajo na vode.
Our activities 23 • Has the Commission effectively managed the integration of coupled support into the Single Payment Scheme? 
Naše dejavnosti 23 • Ali je Komisija uspešno upravljala vključitev vezane podpore v shemo enotnega plačila?
(8/2014) — assessed how well the Commission managed the integration of EU support coupled to specific quantities of agri‐ cultural production (e.g. land cultivated or num‐ ber of animals) into the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) after the 2008 health check of the CAP. 
(8/2014) – V poročilu je bilo ocenjeno, kako uspešno je Komisija po pregledu SKP iz leta 2008 upravljala vključitev podpore EU, vezane na določene količine kmetijske proizvodnje (npr. obdelana zemljišča ali število živali), v shemo enotnega plačila (SEP).
The audit found that the Commission, in the period 2010–12, did not adequately supervise Member States for the calculation of farmers’ pay‐ ment entitlements to EU farm support under the SPS. 
Z revizijo je bilo ugotovljeno, da Komisija v obdobju 2010–2012 držav članic ni ustrezno nadzirala pri izračunavanju pravic do plačila kmetom, upravičenim do podpore EU za kmetijstvo v okviru SEP.
Although Member States had, for their most part, correctly used the reference data of farmers, there were significant weaknesses in the correct application of the calculation rules and princi‐ ples. 
Države članice so sicer večinoma pravilno uporabljale referenčne podatke kmetov, vendar so bile ugotovljene pomembne slabosti pri pravilni uporabi pravil in načel za izračun.
The Commission did not use its mandate to ensure that the criteria applied for the distribu‐ tion of the available support were always consist‐ ent with EU principles, whether they followed the principles of sound financial management or potentially affected market conditions. 
Komisija ni uporabila svoje pristojnosti za zagotovitev, da so merila, ki se uporabljajo za dodelitev razpoložljive podpore, vedno skladna z načeli EU in z načeli dobrega finančnega poslovodenja, in ni ugotovila, ali so ta merila morda vplivala na tržne pogoje.
The framework set up by the Commission did not suf‐ ficiently clarify which checks Member States have to carry out, while Member State control systems varied in quality. 
Z okvirom, ki ga je vzpostavila Komisija, ni bilo dovolj pojasnjeno, katere preglede morajo države članice izvesti, kontrolni sistemi držav članic pa so se med seboj razlikovali po kakovosti.
The main objective of the SPS was to shift policy ori‐ entation from market support to decoupled income support to farmers, thus giving farmers the freedom to produce according to market demands and give them a more stable income. 
Glavni cilj SEP je bil preusmeriti usmerjenost politike s tržne podpore na nevezano dohodkovno podporo za kmete ter tako kmetom omogočiti tržno usmerjenost njihove proizvodnje in stabilnejši dohodek.
The SPS has so far been introduced in 18 Member States and accounts for 54 % of the entire EU budget for agriculture and rural development. • Is the EU investment and promotion support to the wine sector well managed and are its results on the competitiveness of EU wines demonstrated? 
SEP je bila doslej uvedena v 18 državah članicah in dosega 54 % celotnega proračuna EU za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja. • Ali je upravljanje naložbene in promocijske podpore EU vinskemu sektorju dobro in ali so rezultati podpore pri konkurenčnosti vin EU dokazani?
(9/2014) — assessed whether the investment and promotion measures were appropriately designed and examined the avail‐ able monitoring and evaluation data to assess whether the Commission and the Member States achieved the expected results efficiently. 
(9/2014) – V poročilu je bilo ocenjeno, ali so bili naložbeni in promocijski ukrepi ustrezno zasnovani. Sodišče je tudi preučilo razpoložljive podatke o spremljanju in vrednotenju, da bi ocenilo, ali so Komisija in države članice pričakovane rezultate dosegle učinkovito.
The audit found that the management of invest‐ ment and promotion support to the wine sec‐ tor was affected by design and implementation weaknesses and the impact on the competitive‐ ness of EU wines was not always demonstrable. 
Z revizijo je bilo ugotovljeno, da so upravljanju naložbene in promocijske podpore vinskemu sektorju škodovale slabosti v zasnovi in pri izvajanju, učinek na konkurenčnost vin EU pa ni bil vedno dokazan.
The specific investment measure for the wine sector is not justified, because support already exists under the EU rural development policy. 
Specifični naložbeni ukrep za vinski sektor ni upravičen, saj podpora že obstaja v okviru politike EU za razvoj podeželja.
The EU grants for the promotion of wines were often used for consolidating existing markets, rather than winning new markets or recovering old markets. 
Nepovratna sredstva EU za promocijo vina so se pogosto uporabljala za konsolidaciijo obstoječih trgov, namesto za pridobitev novih trgov ali povrnitev starih.
The effects of the investment measure cannot be separated easily from rural develop‐ ment investments. 
Učinkov naložbenega ukrepa ni mogoče zlahka ločiti od naložb v okviru razvoja podeželja.
The EU is the world’s biggest wine producer. 
EU je največja svetovna proizvajalka vina.
EU support is intended to enhance competitiveness and better balance between supply and demand. 
Podpora EU je namenjena povečanju konkurenčnosti in zagotovitvi boljšega ravnovesja med ponudbo in povpraševanjem.
Member States spent €522 million in EU funds under the promotion measure and €518 million under the investment measure between 2009 and 2013. 
Države članice so med letoma 2009 in 2013 iz sredstev EU porabile 522 milijonov EUR v okviru promocijskega ukrepa in 518 milijonov EUR v okviru naložbenega ukrepa.
For 2014–18, there has been a large increase in funds allocated to the Member States for this measure. 
Za obdobje 2014–2018 je bilo državam članicam za ta ukrep dodeljenih veliko več sredstev.
Our activities 24 • The effectiveness of European Fisheries Fund (EFF) support for aquaculture (10/2014) — assessed whether measures to support aquacul‐ ture were well designed and implemented at EU and Member State levels, and whether the EFF delivered value for money and supported the sustainable development of aquaculture. 
Naše dejavnosti 24 • Uspešnost podpore za akvakulturo iz Evropskega sklada za ribištvo (10/2014) – V poročilu je bilo preučeno, ali so bili ukrepi za podporo akvakulture dobro zasnovani in izvedeni na ravni EU in držav članic ter ali je bilo financiranje iz Evropskega sklada za ribištvo (ESR) stroškovno učinkovito in ali je podpiralo trajnostni razvoj akvakulture.
The audit found that measures to support aqua‐ culture up to 2013 were not well designed and implemented at EU and Member State levels, and that the EFF failed to deliver value for money and effective support for the sustainable develop‐ ment of aquaculture. 
Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da ukrepi za podporo akvakulturi do leta 2013 na ravni EU in držav članic niso bili dobro zasnovani in izvedeni ter da ESR ni zagotovil stroškovne učinkovitosti in uspešne podpore trajnostnemu razvoju akvakulture.
There was an inadequate framework to translate the EU’s objectives for the sustainable development of aquaculture into reality and the results were insufficient. 
Ni bilo ustreznega okvira, da bi se lahko uresničili cilji EU za trajnostni razvoj akvakulture, rezultati pa niso bili zadostni.
Measures in Member States to support the sustainable de‐ velopment of aquaculture were not well designed and implemented. 
Ukrepi držav članic za podporo trajnostnemu razvoju akvakulture niso bili dobro zasnovani in izvedeni.
Member States’ national strategic plans and operational programmes were insufficiently clear and they lacked a coherent strategy for the sector. 
Nacionalni strateški načrti in operativni programi držav članic niso bili dovolj jasni ter niso zagotovili usklajene sektorske strategije.
The targeting of EFF fund‐ ing on aquaculture projects was often poor and the audit found that these projects usually failed to achieve the planned results or give good value for money. 
Usmerjanje sredstev ESR v akvakulturne projekte je bilo pogosto slabo, z revizijo pa je bilo tudi ugotovljeno, da ti projekti običajno niso dosegli načrtovanih rezultatov ali zagotovili stroškovne učinkovitosti.
Each year the EU produces about 1.3 million tonnes of fish from aquaculture, with a turnover of €4 bil‐ lion. 
EU vsako leto proizvede približno 1,3 milijona ton rib iz akvakulture, sektor pa ima promet v višini 4 milijarde EUR.
One of the aims of the CFP in the period up to 2013 was to encourage the sustainable development of aquaculture. 
Eden od ciljev skupne ribiške politike v obdobju do leta 2013 je bil spodbujati trajnostni razvoj akvakulture.
By May 2013, the EFF had provided over €400 million to fund measures for productive investments, environmental and health measures in aquaculture. • Achieving economy: keeping the costs of EU‐financed rural development project grants under control (22/2014) — examined whether the approaches followed by the Commission and Member States were the most effective for keep‐ ing the costs of rural development grants under control. 
ESR je do maja 2013 zagotovil več kot 400 milijonov EUR za financiranje ukrepov za produktivne naložbe v akvakulturo ter okoljskih in zdravstvenih ukrepov. • Doseganje gospodarnosti: obvladovanje stroškov projektov za razvoj podeželja, ki jih z nepovratnimi sredstvi financira EU (22/2014) – V poročilu je bilo preučeno, ali so bili pristopi, ki so jih uporabljale Komisija in države članice, pri obvladovanju stroškov nepovratnih sredstev za razvoj podeželja najuspešnejši.
The audit revealed that EU Member States could make significant savings in rural development project grants while ensuring better value for money. 
Revizija je pokazala, da bi države članice EU na področju nepovratnih sredstev za projekte za razvoj podeželja lahko ustvarile znatne prihranke, obenem pa zagotovile tudi večjo stroškovno učinkovitost.
The auditors identified workable, cost‐ effective approaches for Member States to control the costs of rural development grants that could be more widely applied. 
Revizorji so ugotovili, da obstajajo izvedljivi in stroškovno učinkoviti pristopi, ki bi jih bilo mogoče bolj splošno uporabljati in s katerimi bi lahko države članice nadzorovale stroške nepovratnih sredstev za razvoj podeželja.
Member States’ control systems were geared towards check‐ ing the prices of the items or works in the grant applications, without paying equal attention to whether the items themselves were appropriate. 
Kontrolni sistemi v državah članicah so bili osredotočeni na preverjanje cen blaga in storitev, navedenih v vlogah za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev, manj pozornosti pa je bilo namenjene ugotavljanju ustreznosti blaga in storitev.
Some types of price checks were time consuming or gave little assurance that the costs approved were reasonable. 
Nekatere vrste preverjanj cen so bile zamudne ali pa niso dale zadostnega zagotovila, da so bili odobreni stroški razumni.
At the start of the programming period the Commission did not offer enough guidance or spread good practice. 
Komisija na začetku programskega obdobja ni zagotovila dovolj smernic niti ni širila dobrih praks.
It did not en‐ sure that Member States’ systems were effective before approving large volumes of grants. 
Prav tako ni zagotovila, da so sistemi držav članic uspešni, preden so te začele potrjevati velike zneske nepovratnih sredstev.
Around half of the €100 billion EU rural develop‐ ment expenditure programmed for 2007–13 was awarded in the form of grants towards the costs of investments and other projects undertaken by farmers, rural businesses, associations and local authorities. 
Približno polovica odhodkov EU za razvoj podeželja, ki so za obdobje 2007–2013 znašali 100 milijard EUR, je bila dodeljena v obliki nepovratnih sredstev za kritje stroškov naložb in drugih projektov, ki jih izvajajo kmetje, podeželska podjetja, združenja in lokalni organi.
Our activities 25 • Errors in rural development spending: what are the causes, and how are they being ad‐ dressed? 
Naše dejavnosti 25 • Napake pri porabi za razvoj podeželja: Kakšni so vzroki in kako se obravnavajo?
(23/2014) — examined the compliance of rural development implementation with the applicable laws and regulations and identified the main causes of the high error rate for rural development. 
(23/2014) – Poročilo preučuje skladnost izvajanja ukrepov za razvoj podeželja z veljavnimi zakoni in predpisi ter opredeljuje glavne vzroke za visoko stopnjo napake na področju razvoja podeželja.
The audit found that most of the errors in rural development policy are due to breaches of conditions set by Member States. 
Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da je večina napak na področju razvoja podeželja posledica kršitve pogojev, določenih na ravni držav članic.
Their control authorities could and should have detected and corrected most of the errors affecting investment measures in rural development. 
Njihovi nadzorni organi bi lahko odkrili in odpravili večino napak, ki so vplivale na naložbene ukrepe na področju razvoja podeželja, in bi to tudi morali storiti.
Their control systems are deficient because checks are not exhaustive and are based on insufficient informa‐ tion. 
Njihovi kontrolni sistemi so pomanjkljivi, ker pregledi niso izčrpni in ker temeljijo na nezadostnih informacijah.
The average error rate for rural development spending in the last 3 years was 8.2 %. 
Povprečna stopnja napake za porabo na področju razvoja podeželja v zadnjih treh letih je znašala 8,2 %.
Invest‐ ment measures accounted for two thirds of the error rate, and area‐related aid accounted for the other third. 
Naložbeni ukrepi so pomenili dve tretjini te stopnje napake, tretjino pa pomoč na površino.
Only 16 % of the error rate resulted from non‐compliance with direct provisions of EU regulations, while the largest proportion — 84 % — was due to breaches of conditions set at Member State level. 
Samo 16 % stopnje napake je posledica neskladnosti z neposrednimi določbami uredb EU, največji delež (84 %) pa so povzročile kršitve pogojev, določenih na ravni držav članic.
The EU and Member States allocated more than €150 billion to rural development policy during the 2007–13 programming period, almost equally divid‐ ed between investment measures and area‐related aid. 
EU in države članice so v programskem obdobju 2007–2013 za politiko za razvoj podeželja namenile več kot 150 milijard EUR, ki so bile skoraj enakovredno razdeljene med naložbene ukrepe in pomoč na površino.
This spending is particularly prone to error. • Is EU support for preventing and restoring damage to forests caused by fire and natural disasters well managed? 
Pri tej vrsti porabe je verjetnost napake posebej velika. • Ali je bilo upravljanje podpore EU za preprečevanje in obnavljanje škode v gozdovih, ki so jo povzročili požari in naravne nesreče, dobro?
(24/2014) — assessed whether EAFRD support (Measure 226) for restor‐ ing forestry potential and introducing preventive actions has been well managed and whether the Commission and the Member States can dem‐ onstrate that the support achieved its intended objectives in a cost‐effective way. 
(24/2014) – V poročilu je bilo preučeno, ali je bilo upravljanje podpore iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) za obnavljanje proizvodnega potenciala gozdov in uvajanje preprečevalnih dejavnosti (ukrep 226) dobro ter ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da je podpora dosegla zastavljene cilje na stroškovno učinkovit način.
The audit found that EU funding for preventing forest fires and restoring forests damaged by natural disasters and fire was not sufficiently well managed. 
Z revizijo je bilo ugotovljeno, da upravljanje sredstev EU za preprečevanje gozdnih požarov in obnavljanje gozdov, ki so bili poškodovani v naravnih nesrečah in požarih, ni bil dovolj dobro.
The Commission and Member States cannot demonstrate that the intended results of the funding were achieved in a cost‐effective way. 
Komisija in države članice ne morejo dokazati, da so bili zastavljeni rezultati doseženi na stroškovno učinkovit način.
In the last 30 years, fires burned on average 480 000 hectares of forest area in the EU every year. 
V zadnjih 30 letih je v EU letno zgorelo povprečno 480 000 hektarov gozdnih površin.
Preventive actions accounted for more than 80 % of the €1.5 billion of EU funding for the 2007–13 period. 
Za preprečevalne dejavnosti je bilo v obdobju 2007–2013 dodeljenih več kot 80 % od 1,5 milijarde EUR sredstev EU.
Our activities 26 Security and citizenship This policy field was created to ensure the free movement of persons and to offer a high level of protection to citizens. 
Naše dejavnosti 26 Varnost in državljanstvo To področje je bilo ustvarjeno za zagotovitev prostega pretoka oseb in visoke ravni varstva za državljane.
It ranges from the management of the EU’s external borders to judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters, and includes asylum and immigration policies, police cooperation and the fight against crime. 
Obsega vse od upravljanja zunanjih meja EU pa do pravosodnega sodelovanja v civilnih in kazenskih zadevah ter vključuje politike na področju azila in priseljevanja, policijsko sodelovanje in boj proti kriminalu.
Spend‐ ing for this area over the 2014–20 period — at current prices — should amount to €18 billion or below 2 % of the total budget. 
Poraba na tem področju v obdobju 2014–2020 (v tekočih cenah) naj bi znašala 18 milijard EUR ali manj kot 2 % celotnega proračuna.