natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The impact of this proposal may have a positive effect on reducing the error rate, but a negative effect on the effectiveness of the policy (see paragraph 35). 
Učinek tega predloga bi lahko imel pozitiven vpliv na zmanjšanje stopnje napake, vendar bi lahko negativno vplival na uspešnost politike (glej odstavek 35).
27 Article 62 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 
1305/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. decembra 2013 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) in razveljavitvi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
28 Article 38(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 
28 Člen 38(1) Uredbe (EU) št. 1306/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. decembra 2013 o financiranju, upravljanju in spremljanju skupne kmetijske politike in razveljavitvi uredb Sveta (EGS) št.
Observations 40 90 In the 2007–13 programming period29, in case of a difference of more than 3 % between the payment claimed by the beneficiary and the amount declared eligible by the paying agency, a penalty equal to the amount of that difference was applied. 
Opažanja 40 90 V programskem obdobju 2007–201329 se je pri razliki med plačilom, ki ga je zahteval upravičenec, in zneskom, ki ga je plačilna agencija štela za upravičenega, večji od 3 %, uporabila kazen v višini zneska te razlike.
This system was in place in order to deter ben‐ eficiaries from claiming expenditure which was not eligible. 
Ta sistem je vzpostavljen za odvračanje upravičencev od vlaganja zahtevkov za povračilo odhodkov, ki niso upravičeni.
Under the new legal framework30, the threshold for the application of the penalty has been raised to 10 %. 
V skladu z novim pravnim okvirom30 je bil prag za uporabo kazni povišan na 10 %.
This change is likely to reduce the dissuasive effect of the provision, which may lead to an increase in ineligible expenditure included in the payment claims. 
Za to spremembo je verjetno, da bo zmanjšala odvračilni učinek določbe, kar lahko privede do povečanja neupravičenih odhodkov, vključenih v zahtevke za plačilo.
Direct provisions from the EU regulations were not the main source of error 91 As shown above, the new EU legal framework is likely to help reduce the error rate. 
Neposredne določbe iz uredb EU niso bile glavni vir napak 91 Kot je prikazano zgoraj, je za novi pravni okvir EU verjetno, da bo pripomogel k zmanjšanju stopnje napake.
Additional attention needs to be given during the subsequent steps of the regulatory process at Member State level, as most errors oc‐ cur in the implementation of specific provisions in Member State legislation (see paragraph 14). 
Dodatna pozornost bo potrebna v poznejših fazah regulativnega procesa na ravni držav članic, saj do večine napak pride pri izvajanju posebnih določb v zakonodaji držav članic (glej odstavek 14).
92 Since the Member States’ legislation has not yet been approved (see para‐ graph 10), no further insights could be obtained into the potential effect of regulatory changes on the error rate. 
92 Ker zakonodaja držav članic še ni bila sprejeta (glej odstavek 10), ni bilo mogoče dobiti dodatnega vpogleda v morebitni učinek regulativnih sprememb na stopnjo napake.
29 Article 30(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011. 
29 Člen 30(1) Uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 65/2011.
30 Article 63(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ L 227, 31.7.2014, p. 
30 Člen 63(1) Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 809/2014 z dne 17. julija 2014 o pravilih za uporabo Uredbe (EU) št.
Conclusions and 41 recommendations 93 The Court concludes that the Commis‐ sion and the Member States are par‐ tially effective in addressing the main causes of the high error rate for rural development. 
Zaključki in priporočila 41 93 Sodišče je prišlo do zaključka, da so Komisija in države članice delno uspešne pri obravnavi glavnih vzrokov za visoko stopnjo napake na področju razvoja podeželja.
This overall conclusion is mainly based on the assessment that, despite the Commission’s initiatives, Member States’ action plans did not systematically address the weaknesses identified. 
Ta splošni zaključek temelji zlasti na oceni, da kljub pobudam Komisije akcijski načrti držav članic niso sistematično obravnavali ugotovljenih pomanjkljivosti.
94 In order to identify the causes of errors in rural development spending, the Court analysed a sample of transac‐ tions selected randomly during the legality and regularity audits for 2011, 2012 and 2013. 
94 Za ugotovitev vzrokov za napake pri porabi na področju razvoja podeželja je Sodišče analiziralo vzorec transakcij, ki so bile naključno izbrane med revizijami zakonitosti in pravilnosti za leta 2011, 2012 in 2013.
The results showed that, despite an equal share of expend‐ iture, investment measures account for two thirds of the error rate and area‐related aid for the remaining third (paragraphs 12 to 21). 
Rezultati so pokazali, da so kljub enakemu deležu odhodkov naložbeni ukrepi pomenili dve tretjini stopnje napake, pomoč na površino pa preostalo tretjino (odstavki od 12 do 21).
95 For investment measures, the causes of errors can be identified in two ways (paragraphs 22 to 54): — from the beneficiary perspective, the main sources of non‐compli‐ ance related to public procure‐ ment, eligibility criteria for private and public beneficiaries and suspected fraudulent actions by private beneficiaries; — from the paying agency perspec‐ tive, the Court concludes that most errors could and should have been prevented during administrative and on‐the‐spot checks. 
95 Pri naložbenih ukrepih je vzroke za napake mogoče ugotoviti na dva načina (odstavki od 22 do 54): – z vidika upravičenca je glavni vir neskladnosti povezan z javnim naročanjem, merili za upravičenost za zasebne in javne upravičence ter sumom, da so zasebni upravičenci storili goljufiva dejanja; – z vidika plačilne agencije je Sodišče prišlo do zaključka, da bi bilo večino napak mogoče preprečiti z administrativnimi pregledi in pregledi na kraju samem ter da bi bilo to treba storiti.
96 For area‐related aid, three factors ex‐ plain the error rate: limited incentives for beneficiaries to comply with farm‐ ing commitments, a low control rate for farming commitments and weak deterrence by the sanction system (paragraphs 55 to 69). 
96 Na področju pomoči na površino stopnjo napake pojasnjujejo trije dejavniki: omejene spodbude za upravičence, da upoštevajo kmetijske zaveze, nizka stopnja kontrole za kmetijske zaveze in šibek odvračilen vpliv sistema sankcij (odstavki od 55 do 69).
97 As a response to the high error rate in rural development, the Commission asked Member States to develop ac‐ tion plans to prevent and correct the causes of errors. 
97 V odziv na visoke stopnje napake na področju razvoja podeželja je Komisija države članice pozvala, naj razvijejo akcijske načrte za preprečevanje in odpravljanje vzrokov za napake.
While this is a posi‐ tive development, the action plans mainly have a reactive role, and do not systematically address the problems that caused the errors in all Member States. 
To je sicer pozitivna sprememba, vendar imajo akcijski načrti večinoma odzivno vlogo in ne obravnavajo sistematično problemov, ki so povzročili napake v vseh državah članicah.
In particular, there is a lack of preventive action against widespread weaknesses at EU level (paragraphs 70 to 81). 
Zlasti ni dovolj preventivnih ukrepov za zelo razširjene slabosti na ravni EU (odstavki od 70 do 81).
Conclusions and recommendations 42 Recommendation 1 The Commission should complete its corrective actions to date by continu‐ ing to focus on the root causes of error for rural development spending. 
Zaključki in priporočila 42 Priporočilo 1 Komisija naj pravočasno zaključi svoje popravljalne ukrepe tako, da se še naprej osredotoča na temeljne vzroke za napake pri porabi za razvoj podeželja.
In this regard the following preventive and corrective actions should be taken by the Member States where relevant: Public procurement • In the application of the concept of ex ante conditionality (see para‐ graph 84) Member States should develop and provide detailed guidance to beneficiaries on how to apply public procurement rules. 
V zvezi s tem naj zadevne države članice uvedejo naslednje preventivne in popravljalne ukrepe: Javno naročanje • Pri uporabi koncepta predhodne pogojenosti (glej odstavek 84) naj države članice razvijejo in upravičencem zagotovijo podrobna navodila o uporabi pravil o javnem naročanju.
The national authorities specialis‐ ing in monitoring compliance with public procurement rules should be involved in this process. 
Nacionalni organi, specializirani za spremljanje skladnosti s pravili o javnem naročanju, naj bodo vključeni v ta proces.
Focus should be put on the three main breaches of rules: unjustified direct award without proper competi‐ tive procedure; misapplication of selection and award criteria; lack of equal treatment of tenderers. 
Osre-dotočiti bi se bilo treba na tri glavne kršitve pravil: neupravičeno neposredno dodelitev naročila brez ustreznega konkurenčnega postopka, napačno uporabo izbirnih meril in meril za dodelitev ter neenakopravno obravnavo ponudnikov.
Intentional circumvention of rules • Based on the specific eligibility and selection criteria from their rural development programmes, Member States should establish guidelines to help their inspectors to identify indicators of suspected fraudulent actions. 
Namerno zaobhajanje pravil • Države članice naj na podlagi specifičnih meril za upravičenost in izbirnih meril svojih programov razvoja podeželja pripravijo smernice za pomoč svojim inšpektorjem pri ugotavljanju kazalnikov domnevnih goljufivih dejavnosti.
Agri‐environment payments • Member States should increase the scope of their administrative controls, to include commitments which can be checked based on documentary evidence and which are currently verified only during the 5 % on‐the‐spot checks. 
Kmetijsko‐okoljska plačila • Države članice naj povečajo obseg svojih administrativnih kontrol, tako da bodo vključevale zaveze, ki jih je mogoče preveriti na podlagi dokazil in ki se sedaj preverjajo samo s pregledi na kraju samem, ki zajamejo 5 % odhodkov.
In addition, the system of reductions and sanctions should be designed to have an effective dissuasive ef‐ fect on potential rule‐breakers. 
Poleg tega bi bilo treba sistem znižanj in sankcij oblikovati tako, da bi uspešno odvračilno vplival na morebitne kršitelje pravil.
98 The EU legal framework for the 2014–20 period has been adopted, and this is a potential means of addressing causes of error. 
98 Sprejet je bil pravni okvir EU za obdobje 2014–2020, ki je mogoče sredstvo za obravnavo vzrokov za napake.
However, two stages which are currently ongoing provide the main potential for reducing errors: the Commission’s review and approval of rural development programmes, and the Member States’ implementa‐ tion of national regulatory frameworks (paragraphs 82 to 92). 
Toda glavni možnosti za zmanjšanje napak sta dve fazi, ki se izvajata sedaj: pregled in odobritev programov razvoja podeželja, ki ju izvaja Komisija, ter nacionalni regulativni okviri, ki jih izvajajo države članice (odstavki od 82 do 92).
Recommendation 2 The Commission should closely moni‐ tor the implementation of the RDPs and in its conformity audits take ac‐ count of the applicable rules including those adopted at national level where relevant, in order to reduce the risk of repeating weaknesses and errors encountered during the 2007–13 pro‐ gramming period. 
Priporočilo 2 Komisija naj skrbno spremlja izvajanje programov razvoja podeželja in pri svojih revizijah skladnosti upošteva veljavna pravila, vključno s tistimi, ki so bila sprejeta na nacionalni ravni, kadar je to primerno, da bi zmanjšala tveganje ponavljanja slabosti in napak, ki so se pojavile v programskem obdobju 2007–2013.
Conclusions and recommendations 43 99 The Court identified one investment measure (setting up of young farm‐ ers, see paragraphs 36 to 38), and two area‐related measures (‘payments for less‐favoured areas’, see paragraphs 66 to 69) which had low error rates. 
Zaključki in priporočila 43 99 Sodišče je ugotovilo en naložbeni ukrep (pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij, glej odstavke od 36 do 38) in dva ukrepa na površino (plačila za območja z omejenimi možnostmi, glej odstavke od 66 do 69), ki so imeli nizko stopnjo napake.
These measures have three main characteris‐ tics: a focused scope, a limited number of requirements and the use of lump sum payments. 
Ti ukrepi imajo tri glavne značilnosti: osredotočeno področje uporabe, omejeno število zahtev in uporabo pavšalnih plačil.
The Court found that another investment measure, which supports investment in the processing of agricultural products, was the most prone to error. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je za drug naložbeni ukrep, ki podpira naložbe v predelavo kmetijskih proizvodov, verjetnost napake največja.
More than half of the projects audited had errors, a third of which were due to suspected fraudu‐ lent actions. 
Na več kot polovico revidiranih projektov je vplivala napaka, do tretjine napak pa je prišlo zaradi domnevnih goljufivih dejavnosti.
The Court criticised the effectiveness of this measure in a pre‐ vious special report. 
Sodišče je uspešnost tega ukrepa kritiziralo v enem od prejšnjih posebnih poročil.
Recommendation 3 The Commission and the Member States should analyse: • to what extent the characteristics of a more focused scope, limited eligibility criteria and the use of simplified cost options can be rep‐ licated into the design and imple‐ mentation of an increased number of support measures, without jeopardising the overall objectives of those measures; • how to improve the scheme for supporting investments in the processing of agricultural prod‐ ucts, taking into consideration the following elements: — the actual need for public aid for this sector and the risk of deadweight; — the categories of beneficiaries targeted: farmers looking to achieve vertical integration of their businesses, or companies which have no agricultural activity; — the high public aid ceiling, which constitutes an incen‐ tive for large corporations, as only they have access to the required co‐financing; — the entire set of eligibility con‐ ditions and the potential for circumventing them; — greater efforts to improve the design and performance of administrative and on‐the‐spot controls. • the agri‐environment payments measure so that, as far as possible, commitments can be controlled via Member States’ administrative checks. 
Priporočilo 3 Srednjeročno naj Komisija in države članice analizirajo: • koliko je mogoče značilnosti bolj osredotočenega področja uporabe, omejenih meril za upravičenost in uporabe poenostavljenega obračunavanja stroškov uporabiti tudi pri oblikovanju in izvajanju povečanega števila podpornih ukrepov, ne da bi bili pri tem ogroženi splošni cilji teh ukrepov; • kako izboljšati shemo za podporo naložbam v predelavo kmetijskih proizvodov ob upoštevanju naslednjih elementov: – dejansko potrebo po javni pomoči za ta sektor in tveganje mrtvih izgub; – kategorije upravičencev, v katere je shema usmerjena: kmetje, ki želijo doseči vertikalno integracijo svojih podjetij, ali družbe, ki se ne ukvarjajo s kmetijsko dejavnostjo; – visoko zgornjo mejo za javno pomoč, ki je spodbuda za velike korporacije, saj imajo samo te dostop do potrebnega sofinanciranja; – celoten sklop pogojev za upravičenost in možnosti za zaobhajanje teh pogojev; – več prizadevanj za izboljšanje zasnove in uspešnosti administrativnih pregledov in pregledov na kraju samem. • ukrep kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil, da se bodo lahko obveznosti, kolikor je mogoče, nadzirale z administrativnimi pregledi držav članic.
Conclusions and recommendations 44 100 In the context of reducing the causes of error, a recurring finding in this report (see paragraphs 33 to 35, 38, 67, 88 to 90, Box 3 and Box 11) has been the need to maintain an appropriate balance between the number and complexity of rules, as a transposition of the need to achieve pre‐defined objectives, and the need to guarantee the legality and regularity of spend‐ ing. 
Zaključki in priporočila 44 100 Ponavljajoča se ugotovitev v tem poročilu (glej odstavke od 33 do 35, 38, 67, od 88 do 90, okvir 3 in okvir 11) glede odpravljanja vzrokov za napake je potreba po vzdrževanju ustreznega ravnovesja med številom in zapletenostjo pravil, kar odraža potrebo po doseganju vnaprej določenih ciljev ter potrebo po zagotavljanju zakonitosti in pravilnosti porabe.
In the Court’s opinion, finding the right balance between these two counterweights is the key to the suc‐ cessful implementation of the rural development policy. 
Po mnenju Sodišča je to, da se poišče pravo ravnovesje med tema nasprotjema, ključno za uspešno izvajanje politike za razvoj podeželja.
This report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mrs Rasa BUDBERGYTĖ, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 17 December 2014. 
To poročilo je sprejel senat I, ki ga vodi ga. Rasa BUDBERGYTĖ, članica Računskega sodišča, v Luxembourgu na zasedanju 17. decembra 2014.
Annex 45 List of rural development measures Investment measures Measure Expenditure1 (euro) Transactions audited Modernisation of agricultural holdings 8 204 333 653 53 Basic services for the economy and rural population 1 965 164 204 24 Setting up of young farmers 2 096 198 537 20 Village renewal and development 2 300 229 913 20 Adding value to agricultural and forestry products 2 990 722 693 19 Implementing local development strategies. 
Priloga 45 Seznam ukrepov za razvoj podeželja Naložbeni ukrepi Ukrep Odhodki1 (v EUR) Revidirane transakcije Posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev 8 204 333 653 53 Osnovne storitve za gospodarstvo in podeželsko prebivalstvo 1 965 164 204 24 Pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij 2 096 198 537 20 Obnova in razvoj vasi 2 300 229 913 20 Dodajanje vrednosti kmetijskim in gozdarskim proizvodom 2 990 722 693 19 Izvajanje lokalnih razvojnih strategij.
Quality of life/diversification 1 707 595 920 17 Infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry 2 355 539 793 15 Early retirement 2 051 938 167 13 Business creation and development 881 435 718 9 Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage 682 545 431 8 Restoring forestry potential and introducing prevention actions 963 189 776 5 Technical assistance 763 706 346 4 Diversification into non‐agricultural activities 714 070 708 4 Vocational training and information actions 518 543 051 4 Encouragement of tourism activities 482 748 900 4 Restoring agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and introducing appropriate prevention actions 348 644 877 4 Cooperation for development of new products, processes and technologies in the agriculture and food sector and the forestry sector 113 588 163 4 Running the local action group, acquiring skills and animating the territory 545 795 172 3 Holdings undergoing restructuring due to a reform of a common market organisation 146 941 744 3 Implementing local development strategies. 
Kakovost življenja/diverzifikacija 1 707 595 920 17 Infrastruktura, povezana z razvojem in prilagoditvijo kmetijstva in gozdarstva 2 355 539 793 15 Predčasna upokojitev 2 051 938 167 13 Podpora ustanavljanju in razvoju podjetij 881 435 718 9 Ohranjanje in izboljševanje dediščine podeželja 682 545 431 8 Obnavljanje proizvodnega potenciala gozdov in uvajanje preventivnih aktivnosti 963 189 776 5 Tehnična pomoč 763 706 346 4 Diverzifikacija v nekmetijske dejavnosti 714 070 708 4 Poklicno usposabljanje in dejavnosti informiranja 518 543 051 4 Spodbujanje turističnih dejavnosti 482 748 900 4 Obnavljanje potenciala kmetijske proizvodnje, prizadetega zaradi naravnih nesreč, in uvajanje ustreznih preventivnih ukrepov 348 644 877 4 Sodelovanje pri razvoju novih proizvodov, procesov in tehnologij v kmetijskem in živilskem ter gozdarskem sektorju 113 588 163 4 Vodenje lokalnih akcijskih skupin, pridobivanje strokovnih znanj in animacija območij 545 795 172 3 Kmetijska gospodarstva, ki so v postopku prestrukturiranja zaradi reforme skupne ureditve trga 146 941 744 3 Izvajanje lokalnih razvojnih strategij.
Competitiveness 145 665 094 3 First afforestation of agricultural land (establishment costs) 1 226 065 5452 2 Non‐productive investments linked to forests 379 677 940 2 Semi‐subsistence farming 609 703 070 1 Non‐productive investments linked to agri‐environmental commitments or Natura 2000 315 192 539 1 Producer groups 152 989 100 1 Use of advisory services 89 316 108 1 Participation of farmers in food quality schemes 65 390 549 1 Setting up of management, relief and advisory services 24 853 320 1 1 Cumulative amounts paid to the Member States since the beginning of the programming period (2007) until the end of the 2013 financial year (15 October 2013), as registered in the Commission’s SFC database. 
Konkurenčnost 145 665 094 3 Prvo pogozdovanje kmetijskih površin (stroški vzpostavitve) 1 226 065 5452 2 Neproizvodne naložbe, povezane z gozdovi 379 677 940 2 Delno samooskrbno kmetovanje 609 703 070 1 Neproizvodne naložbe, povezane s kmetijsko‐okoljskimi zavezami ali območji Natura 2000 315 192 539 1 Skupine proizvajalcev 152 989 100 1 Uporaba svetovalnih storitev 89 316 108 1 Sodelovanje kmetov v shemah kakovosti hrane 65 390 549 1 Ustanavljanje služb za pomoč pri upravljanju kmetij, nadomeščanje na kmetijah in svetovanje 24 853 320 1 1 Kumulativni zneski, izplačani državam članicam od začetka programskega obdobja (2007) do konca proračunskega leta 2013 (15. oktober 2013), kot so evidentirani v podatkovni zbirki SFC Komisije.
2 First afforestation for agricultural land supports establishment costs (investments made for the preparation of the land and planting) and area‐related aid (maintenance and compensation). 
2 Ukrep za prvo pogozdovanje kmetijskih površin podpira stroške vzpostavitve (naložbe za pripravo zemljišča in sajenje) in pomoč na površino (vzdrževanje in nadomestilo).
No distinction is made in the declaration of expenditure to the Commission. Annex 
Ni razlikovanja v prijavi odhodkov Komisiji. Priloga
Annex 46 Investment measures Measure Expenditure1 (euro) Transactions audited Provision of farm advisory and extension services in Bulgaria and Romania 7 136 945 1 Improvement of the economic value of forests 211 138 607 0 First afforestation of non‐agricultural land (establishment costs) 111 889 830 0 Skills acquisition, animation and implementation of local development strategies 73 558 357 0 Information and promotion activities 66 792 678 0 Meeting standards based on Community legislation 59 547 670 0 Training and information 58 573 586 0 Implementing cooperation projects 46 980 838 0 Implementing local development strategies. 
Priloga 46 Naložbeni ukrepi Ukrep Odhodki1 (v EUR) Revidirane transakcije Zagotavljanje storitev kmetijskega svetovanja in širitve v Bolgariji in Romuniji 7 136 945 1 Povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov 211 138 607 0 Prvo pogozdovanje nekmetijskih površin (stroški vzpostavitve) 111 889 830 0 Pridobivanje strokovnih znanj, animacija in izvajanje lokalnih razvojnih strategij 73 558 357 0 Dejavnosti informiranja in promocije 66 792 678 0 Izpolnjevanje standardov, ki temeljijo na zakonodaji Skupnosti 59 547 670 0 Usposabljanje in informiranje 58 573 586 0 Izvajanje projektov sodelovanja 46 980 838 0 Izvajanje lokalnih razvojnih strategij.