natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Evaluation conclusions were selectively quoted and not systematically followed up. 
Zaključki vrednotenja so bili navedeni selektivno in niso bili sistematično spremljani.
The Commission and Member States did not present their own conclusions on the efficiency or effectiveness of the expenditure (paragraphs 35 to 57). 
Komisija in države članice niso predložile lastnih zaključkov o učinkovitosti ali uspešnosti odhodkov (odstavki od 35 do 57).
Thirdly, imperfect though the available monitoring and evaluation information may be, the Commission and Member States have not made sufficient use of it to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the measures. 
Prav tako Komisija in države članice razpoložljivih informacij o spremljanju in vrednotenju, čeprav niso bile popolne, niso v zadostni meri uporabile za izboljšanje učinkovitosti in uspešnosti ukrepov.
In the day-to-day management of the programmes, the Member States have focused on spending the budget more than on achieving the intended results. 
Pri tekočem upravljanju programov so se države članice bolj kot na doseganje načrtovanih rezultatov osredotočale na porabo proračuna.
The Commission supported its proposals for the 2014–20 programming period with information from the ex ante evaluations of the RDPs for the current period, without presenting any information on the results achieved (paragraphs 58 to 75). 
Komisija je svoje predloge za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 podprla z informacijami, pridobljenimi s predhodnimi vrednotenji programov razvoja podeželja za tekoče obdobje, brez navedbe kakršnih koli informacij o doseženih rezultatih (odstavki od 58 do 75).
The Commission’s proposals for 2014–20 promise an increased focus on results. This increased focus does not require new legislation; it can and should start now to ensure that the EU’s budget is spent well, particularly as the end of the 2007–13 programming period approaches and the risk increases that the remaining budget is spent hastily to meet the 2015 cut-off date for payments. 
Za to pa ni potrebna nova zako-nodaja: mogoče in treba je začeti takoj, da se zagotovi, da je proračun EU dobro porabljen, zlasti ker se približuje konec programskega obdobja 2007–2013, to pa povečuje tveganje, da bodo preostala proračunska sredstva porabljena v naglici, da se ujame rok za plačila leta 2015.
In view of this, the Court recommends: 36 RECOMMENDATION 1 The Member States and the Commission should make use of monitoring and evaluation to increase their focus on achieving results for the remainder of the current programming period. 
Na podlagi navedenega Sodišče priporoča: 36 PRIPOROČILO 1 Države članice in Komisija bi morale spremljanje in vrednotenje uporabiti za okrepitev svoje osredotočenosti na doseganje rezultatov v preostanku tekočega programskega obdobja.
Member States should justify all proposed changes to RDP measures, and explain their intended effects, in terms of their effectiveness and efficiency in achieving results in relation to the RDP and the EU’s objectives. 
Države članice bi morale utemeljiti vse predlagane spremembe ukrepov programov razvoja podeželja in pojasniti, kakšni so njihovi načrtovani učinki na uspešnost in učinkovitost doseganja rezultatov v zvezi s cilji programa razvoja podeželja in EU.
The Commission should assess the proposed changes in the same terms. 
Komisija bi morala predlagane spremembe oceniti pod istimi pogoji.
The annual examination of programmes should focus on results, as required by the regulation. Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Letna preučitev programov bi se morala osredotočati na rezultate, kot to določa uredba. Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
The 2007–13 mid-term evaluations suffered from a lack of reliable data, poor evaluation methods and a lack of consistency that seriously limited their usefulness and hindered the possibilities to draw valid conclusions at EU level. 
Pri vmesnih vrednotenjih za obdobje 2007–2013 so se pojavljale težave, kot so pomanjkanje zanesljivih podatkov, slabe metode vrednotenja in pomanjkanje doslednosti, kar je znatno zmanjšalo njihovo uporabnost ter oviralo možnosti za oblikovanje tehtnih zaključkov na ravni EU.
The latest available result monitoring data is still inconsistent and of unsatisfactory quality. 
Najnovejši razpoložljivi podatki o spremljanju rezultatov so še vedno nedosledni in nezadovoljive kakovosti.
As a consequence, there is a risk that the ex post evaluations in 2015 may not be of sufficient quality. 
Zato obstaja tveganje, da naknadna vrednotenja v letu 2015 mogoče ne bodo dovolj kakovostna.
37 RECOMMENDATION 2 Member States and the Commission should take action now to ensure that good quality, comparable information can be obtained from the ex post evaluations in 2015 of the 2007–13 programming period. (i) Drawing on the lessons of the mid-term evaluations, the Commission should issue specific guidance aimed at ensuring the quality and consistency of the ex post evaluations. (ii) Member States should plan how to provide the information needed for ex post evaluation, including the wealth of information gathered for administrative purposes. 
37 PRIPOROČILO 2 Države članice in Komisija bi morale ukrepati takoj, da bi zagotovile, da bodo naknadna vrednotenja programskega obdobja 2007–2013 v letu 2015 dala kakovostne in primerljive informacije. (i) Komisija bi morala objaviti posebne napotke, oblikovane na podlagi izkušenj iz vmesnih vrednotenj, da se zagotovita kakovost in doslednost naknadnih vrednotenj. (ii) Države članice bi morale načrtovati, kako bodo zagotavljale informacije, potrebne za naknadno vrednotenje, vključno z obilico informacij, ki se zberejo za upravne namene.
Member States should ensure that the evaluation contracts include quality criteria requiring evaluators to follow the CMEF guidance and to answer the common evaluation questions based on sound data and evaluation methods. (iii) The Commission should be proactive by checking whether Member States are following the guidance for the common indicators and the ex post evaluations. 
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da so v pogodbe o vrednotenju vključena merila kakovosti, ki od izvajalcev vrednotenja zahtevajo, da upoštevajo napotke CMEF in da na skupna vprašanja za vrednotenje odgovorijo na podlagi zanesljivih podatkov in metod vrednotenja. (iii) Komisija bi morala dejavno preverjati, ali države članice upoštevajo napotke za skupne kazalnike in naknadna vrednotenja.
Where this is not the case, the Commission should work with the Member States involved to identify solutions that allow good quality, comparable information to be obtained. Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
V nasprotnem primeru bi morala Komisija sodelovati z zadevnimi državami članicami, da se določijo rešitve za pridobivanje kakovostnih in primerljivih informacij. Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
Weaknesses in the design of the 2007–13 CMEF contributed to the current lack of timely, reliable and consistent information, for results data, in particular. 
Slabosti v zasnovi CMEF za obdobje 2007–2013 so prispevale k sedanjemu pomanjkanju pravočasnih, zanesljivih in doslednih informacij, zlasti pri podatkih o rezultatih.
The Commission has already made some improvements to indicator definitions and guidance but this does not go far enough. 
Komisija je že uvedla nekaj izboljšav opredelitev kazalnikov in napotkov, vendar to ni dovolj.
Targets for results, with regular monitoring of achievements, are a key element in sound financial management. 
Določene ciljne vrednosti rezultatov in redno spremljanje dosežkov so ključni element dobrega finančnega poslovodenja.
However, the Commission’s current plans for the 2014–20 CMEF are that targets would not be required for results indicators. 
Kljub temu po sedanjih načrtih Komisije za CMEF v obdobju 2014–2020 ciljne vrednosti za kazalnike rezultatov naj ne bi bile zahtevane.
38 RECOMMENDATION 3 For the 2014–20 programming period, the Commission should improve the CMEF design to produce more timely, relevant, reliable and comparable information, in particular on the effectiveness and efficiency of each measure in achieving results. (i) The purpose of each of the common indicators and its intended use at EU level should be clear. 
38 PRIPOROČILO 3 Komisija bi morala za programsko obdobje 2014–2010 izboljšati zasnovo CMEF, da bi zagotavljal bolj pravočasne, relevantne, zanesljive in primerljive informacije, zlasti o uspešnosti in učinkovitosti posameznega ukrepa pri doseganju rezultatov. (i) Namen vsakega od skupnih kazalnikov in njegova predvidena uporaba na ravni EU bi morala biti jasna.
Result indicators should show the direct effects of the expenditure — what has been achieved — and should be set for each of the EU’s priorities and objectives. 
Kazalniki rezultatov bi morali prikazovati neposredne učinke odhodkov – to, kar je bilo doseženo – in bi jih bilo treba določiti za vsako od prednostnih nalog in ciljev EU.
Data should be collected for each measure that contributes to those priorities and objectives such that the effectiveness and efficiency of specific measures can be assessed. (ii) The Member States and Commission should check the quality of the common indicator data and provide assurance as to its reliability. (iii) Regarding the objectives specific to RDPs, the Member States should be obliged to account in a timely manner for the outputs, results and impacts achieved (see Recommendation 6) rather than to produce specific indicator data or evaluations. Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Podatke bi bilo treba zbirati za vsak ukrep, ki prispeva k tem prednostnim nalogam in ciljem, tako da bi se lahko ocenila uspešnost in učinkovitost posameznih ukrepov. (ii) Države članice in Komisija bi morale preveriti kakovost podatkov o skupnih kazalnikih in dati zagotovilo o njihovi zanesljivosti. (iii) Za cilje, ki so specifični za posamezne programe razvoja podeželja, bi morale države članice namesto podatkov o specifičnih kazalnikih ali vrednotenjih pravočasno prikazati dosežene izložke, rezultate in vpliv (glej priporočilo 6). Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
The Court found that the 2007–13 RDPs did not set specific, measurable objectives, which led to poor targeting of the measures as well as making monitoring and evaluation difficult. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da v programih razvoja podeželja za obdobje od 2007–2013 niso bili določeni specifični, merljivi cilji, kar je povzročilo slabo ciljno usmerjanje ukrepov in otežilo spremljanje in vrednotenje.
The 2014–20 RDPs present an opportunity to put the spending of the EU budget on a sounder footing. 
Programi razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2014–2010 so priložnost, da se ustvari trdnejša podlaga za porabo proračuna EU.
39 RECOMMENDATION 4 Member States and the Commission should ensure that the 2014–20 RDPs provide a better foundation for sound financial management, with specific, measurable objectives and plans for monitoring and evaluation of the programmes’ efficiency and effectiveness. (i) In the 2014-20 RDPs, Member States should set specific objectives that are measurable, with targets for the results. 
39 PRIPOROČILO 4 Države članice in Komisija bi morale zagotoviti, da bodo programi razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2014–2020 zagotavljali boljšo podlago za dobro finančno poslovodenje s specifičnimi, merljivimi cilji in načrti spremljanja in vrednotenja učinkovitosti in uspešnosti programov. (i) Države članice bi morale v svojih programih razvoja podeželja za obdobje od 2014–2020 določiti specifične cilje, ki so merljivi, vključno s ciljnimi vrednostmi za rezultate.
The chosen RDP measures and the intended results should be justified by reference to the effectiveness and efficiency of the related measures in 2007–13. (ii) The RDPs should specify for each of the measures what information will be required to show the output, results and impacts. 
Izbrane ukrepe programov razvoja podeželja in načrtovane rezultate je treba utemeljiti s sklicevanjem na uspešnost in učinkovitost zadevnih ukrepov v obdobju 2007–2013. (ii) Za vsak ukrep v programih razvoja podeželja bi bilo treba določiti, katere informacije bodo zahtevane za prikaz izložkov, rezultatov in vpliva.
Where the common indicators are not sufficient, additional indicators or evaluation work should be specified. 
Če skupni kazalniki niso zadostni, je treba določiti dodatne kazalnike ali dodatno vrednotenje.
For each element of information needed, the RDPs should show the source, how it will be collected (with due regard to the administrative burden), and how the reliability will be assured. (iii) The Commission should check RDPs not just for compliance with the regulation but also for the planned effectiveness and efficiency: the Commission should ensure that RDPs provide a sufficient basis for sound financial management by assessing the intended results in relation to the budgeted costs. Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
V programih razvoja podeželja bi moral biti za vsak element zahtevanih informacij določen vir, način zbiranja (ob upoštevanju upravnega bremena) in način zagotavljanja zanesljivosti. (iii) Komisija bi morala preveriti ne le skladnost programov razvoja podeželja z uredbo, temveč tudi njihovo načrtovano uspešnost in učinkovitost: z ocenjevanjem načrtovanih rezultatov glede na v proračunu predvidene stroške bi morala zagotoviti, da programi razvoja podeželja nudijo zadostno podlago za dobro finančno poslovodenje. Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
The Court has found in its rural development audits that many Member States did not sufficiently target the RDP measures through eligibility conditions and selection criteria, so there was little ex ante assurance that the measures would be efficient and effective. 
Sodišče je pri svojih revizijah razvoja podeželja ugotovilo, da mnoge države članice ukrepov programov razvoja podeželja niso dovolj ciljno usmerjale s pomočjo pogojev za upravičenost in izbirnih meril, zato ni bilo veliko predhodnega zagotovila, da bodo ukrepi učinkoviti in uspešni.
This increases the need to obtain ex post assurance from monitoring and evaluation, with the associated costs and administrative burden of data collection. 
To povečuje potrebo, da se s spremljanjem in vrednotenjem pridobi naknadno zagotovilo, kar zajema zadevne stroške in upravno breme zbiranja podatkov.
40 RECOMMENDATION 5 Member States should design effectiveness and efficiency into the 2014–20 RDP implementation systems, with the information gathered for the application, selection and payment processes reused for monitoring and evaluation. 
40 PRIPOROČILO 5 Države članice bi morale vgraditi uspešnost in učinkovitost v sisteme za izvajanje programov razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2014–2020, tako da bi se informacije, ki se zberejo ob vložitvi zahtevka, izboru in plačilnih postopkih ponovno uporabile za spremljanje in vrednotenje.
Member States should make an ex ante appraisal of effectiveness and efficiency not only at the time of programming, but also when selecting operations for funding. 
Države članice bi morale opraviti predhodno oceno uspešnosti in učinkovitosti ne samo v času programskega načrtovanja, temveč tudi pri izbiranju dejavnosti za financiranje.
This approach reduces the risk of wasting money on ineffective projects that could have been eliminated in project selection. 
Ta pristop znižuje tveganje zapravljanja denarja za neuspešne projekte, ki bi se lahko izločili pri izbiri projektov.
The information collected for project selection or payment (job creation, environmental benefits targeted, etc.) can reduce the need for subsequent data collection and thereby reduce the administrative burden. 
Informacije, ki se zberejo pri izbiri projekta ali plačilu (ustvarjanje delovnih mest, načrtovane okoljske koristi itd.) lahko zmanjšajo potrebe po naknadnem zbiranju podatkov in tako zmanjšajo upravno breme.
While the Member States and Commission published the reports by the independent evaluators, in their own annual and summary reports they did not sufficiently account for how well they have spent the EU budget. 
Čeprav so države članice in Komisija objavile poročila neodvisnih izvajalcev vrednotenja, pa v lastnih letnih in zbirnih poročilih niso v zadostni meri pojasnile, kako dobro so porabile proračunska sredstva EU.
In these reports, the Member States and Commission did not use the financial and output indicator data to explain the results achieved and did not present information on efficiency. 
Države članice in Komisija v teh poročilih niso uporabile podatkov o finančnih kazalnikih in kazalnikih izložkov, da bi z njimi obrazložile dosežene rezultate, prav tako pa niso predstavile informacij o učinkovitosti.
Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 41 RECOMMENDATION 6 Member States and the Commission should improve their reporting on the results achieved with the EU budget to enhance accountability. 
12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena? 41 PRIPOROČILO 6 Države članice in Komisija bi morale izboljšati svoje poročanje o rezultatih, ki so bili doseženi s proračunskimi sredstvi EU, da okrepijo odgovornost.
This should include a more systematic follow-up of evaluation findings. (i) From the mid-point of the programming cycle onwards, Member States and the Commission should present conclusions in their annual reports on what the programmes have achieved in relation to each of the RDP and EU objectives. 
Poročanje bi moralo zajemati bolj sistematično nadaljnje spremljanje ugotovitev vrednotenja. (i) Od sredine programskega cikla naprej bi morale države članice in Komisija v svojih letnih poročilih predstaviti zaključke o dosežkih programov v zvezi z vsakim posameznim ciljem programa razvoja podeželja in ciljem EU.
These reports should have a primary focus on the results achieved and should explicitly consider the efficiency of each measure, with the results compared to the costs. 
Ta poročila bi morala največ pozornosti nameniti doseženim rezultatom, izrecno pa bi morala obravnavati tudi učinkovitost vsakega ukrepa s primerjanjem rezultatov in stroškov.
Where the common indicators do not sufficiently allow achievement of the RDP objectives to be shown, they should be complemented by administrative data and evaluation findings, taking due account of the limits of their scope and reliability. (ii) In their reporting of evaluation findings, Member States and the Commission should make clear what action they are taking or explain the reason if no action is planned. 
Če s skupnimi kazalniki ni mogoče v zadostni meri prikazati dosežkov v zvezi s cilji programa razvoja podeželja, jih je treba dopolniti z upravnimi podatki in ugotovitvami vrednotenja, pri tem pa upoštevati omejitve glede njihovega obsega in zanesljivosti. (ii) Države članice in Komisija bi morale pri svojem poročanju o ugotovitvah vrednotenja jasno navesti, kateri ukrep bodo sprejele, ali pojasniti, zakaj ne načrtujejo nobenih ukrepov.
All evaluation conclusions should be presented and followed up, not just a selection. (iii) To ensure that the full value is obtained from the ex post evaluations of the 2007–13 programmes, the Commission and Member States should include in their annual reports for the year 2015 an analysis of the implications of the evaluation findings for the 2014–20 period. 
Predstaviti in spremljati bi morale vse zaključke vrednotenja, ne le izbor. (iii) Da se zagotovi kar največja korist naknadnih vrednotenj programov za obdobje 2007–2013, bi morale Komisija in države članice v svoja letna poročila za leto 2015 vključiti analize vplivov, ki so jih imele ugotovitve vrednotenj na obdobje od 2014–2020. To poročilo je sprejel senat I, ki ga vodi g.
This Report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mr Ioannis SARMAS, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 9 October 2013. 
Ioannis SARMAS, član Evropskega računskega sodišča, v Luxembourgu na zasedanju 9. oktobra 2013.
For the Court of Auditors Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA President Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Za Računsko sodišče Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA Predsednik Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
This table shows if a target was defined and data provided for at least one of these components. 
Ta tabela prikazuje, ali je bila ciljna vrednost določena in ali so bili podatki predloženi vsaj za enega od teh sestavnih delov.
In some cases, targets were increased for one component and decreased for another. 
V nekaterih primerih so bile ciljne vrednosti povečane pri enem in zmanjšane pri drugem sestavnem delu.
This is shown as ‘target increased/reduced’. Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
To je označeno kot „ciljna vrednost povečana/zmanjšana“ Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
44 Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? REPLY OF THE COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. The Commission notes that this audit report essentially focuses on the monitoring, evaluation and reporting of the effectiveness and efficiency and the use made of that monitoring and evaluation information regarding the rural development expenditure. 
12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena? 44 Posebno poročilo št. ODGOVOR KOMISIJE POVZETEK I. Komisija ugotavlja, da se to revizijsko poročilo v bistvu osredotoča na spremljanje, vrednotenje in poročanje uspešnosti in učinkovitosti ter na uporabo informacij tega spremljanja in vrednotenja v zvezi z odhodki za razvoj podeželja.
Regarding how well the EU budget allocated to Rural Development has been spent, certain results and impacts can only be properly assessed well into the programming period and afterwards through evaluations. 
V zvezi s smotrnostjo porabe proračunskih sredstev EU, dodeljenih za razvoj podeželja, se lahko določeni rezultati in vplivi ustrezno ocenijo le, ko že preteče nekaj časa programskega obdobja, in pa pozneje prek vrednotenj.
V. (a) The Commission considers that the three overarching objectives for rural development are sufficiently clear and spelled out in Article 4 of R1698/2005. 
V. (a) Komisija meni, da so trije glavni cilji za razvoj podeželja dovolj jasni in natančno opredeljeni v členu 4 Uredbe 1698/2005.
They are further specified and substantiated in the recitals and in the Community strategic guidelines. 
Dodatno so določeni in podkrepljeni v uvodnih izjavah in strateških smernicah Skupnosti.