natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
17 Bulgaria and Romania did not in fact reply to the survey, but the necessary information was available in these countries’ RDPs and in spending breakdowns provided by the Commission. 
17 Bolgarija in Romunija nista odgovorili na anketo, toda potrebne informacije so bile v programih razvoja podeželja teh držav in razčlenitvah porabe, ki jih je zagotovila Komisija.
18 Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006. 
18 Člen 41(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1974/2006.
TA spending in various Member States by category (2007–13, EAFRD co‐financing) (million euro) Poland Italy Hungary Romania Spain Germany Austria Portugal Lithuania Sweden France Greece Bulgaria Estonia Denmark Czech Republic Netherlands Ireland Note: The figures for Spain, Germany and Italy, which each have a system of regional RDPs, are extrapolated from the data provided by the regions which responded to the survey. 
Poraba za tehnično pomoč v različnih državah članicah po kategorijah (obdobje 2007–2013, sofinanciranje EKSRP) (v milijonih EUR) Poljska Italija Madžarska Romunija Španija Nemčija Avstrija Portugalska Litva Švedska Francija Grčija Bolgarija Estonija Danska Češka Nizozemska Irska Opomba: Številčni podatki za Španijo, Nemčijo in Italijo, ki imajo sistem regionalnih programov razvoja podeželja, so ekstrapolirani iz podatkov, ki so jih posredovale regije, ki so se odzvale na anketo.
Coverage was anyway considered to be sufficiently representative in each case (Spain 95 %, Germany 85 %, Italy 77 %). 
V vsakem primeru je štelo, da je pokritost dovolj reprezentativna (Španija 95 %, Nemčija 85 % in Italija 77 %).
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Preparation, management, monitoring, evaluation and control activities: administrative costs Preparation, management, monitoring, evaluation and control activities: streghthening capacity Information and publicity National rural network Remainder of TA budget not yet spent Figure 4 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 dejavnosti priprave, upravljanja, spremljanja, vrednotenja in kontrole: administrativni stroški dejavnosti priprave, upravljanja, spremljanja, vrednotenja in kontrole: krepitev zmogljivosti informiranje in obveščanje javnosti nacionalna mreža za podeželje preostanek še neporabljenega proračuna za tehnično pomoč Slika 4
Observations 21 43 The results of the survey confirm what was found in the five audited Member States: when setting the eligibility criteria for TA funding, the competent authorities generally interpreted the regulatory provisions in a very flexible manner. 
Opažanja 21 43 Rezultati ankete potrjujejo ugotovitve iz petih revidiranih držav članic: pristojni organi so si pri določanju meril za upravičenost do financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči na splošno zelo prožno razlagali regulativne določbe.
44 This broad understanding of TA is by no means specific to agriculture and rural development but also occurs in other areas of EU funding. 
44 To široko razumevanje tehnične pomoči nikakor ni značilno samo za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja, saj se pojavlja tudi na drugih področjih financiranja EU.
A recent report for the Commission19 on the financing of payroll from the Structural Funds concludes ‘... all Member States have used TA to co‐finance staff. 
V nedavnem poročilu za Komisijo19 o financiranju izplačil plač iz strukturnih skladov je na koncu navedeno, da so vse države članice uporabile tehnično pomoč za sofinanciranje osebja, natančneje, da večina držav članic uporablja tehnično pomoč v glavnem za sofinanciranje plač20.
More precisely, the majority of the Member States uses TA to co‐finance mainly salaries.’20 45 At the start of the period, payroll already accounted for a large part of the TA funding used by Member States from the EAFRD and, in many cases, that share subsequently increased further. 
45 Izplačila plač so že na začetku obdobja pomenila velik delež financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči, ki so jo države članice uporabile iz EKSRP. V številnih primerih se je ta delež nato še povečal.
In Poland, for example, appro‐ priations to management (mainly staff) costs rose sharply in 2013 by transfer from information and rural network ac‐ tions. 
Na Poljskem so se, na primer, odobrena proračunska sredstva za stroške upravljanja (večinoma za osebje) leta 2013 skokoma povečala zaradi prenosa iz dejavnosti informiranja in mreže za podeželje.
From mid‐2009 Lithuania gradu‐ ally included the salaries of staff only partly assigned to implementation of the RDP in the TA allocation, with the express objective of relieving the burden on the national budget. 
Litva je od sredine leta 2009 v dodelitev za tehnično pomoč postopoma zajemala plače osebja, ki se je le deloma ukvarjalo z izvajanjem programa razvoja podeželja, pri tem pa izrecno navedla, da je cilj olajšati breme za nacionalni proračun.
From no part‐time staff in 2008, by the end of 2012 almost 75 % of all staff funded in this way were also engaged on other tasks unrelated to the RDP. 
Leta 2008 ni tega dela nihče od osebja opravljal le deloma, na koncu leta 2012 pa se je skoraj 75 % tako financiranega osebja ukvarjalo tudi z drugimi nalogami, ki niso bile povezane s programom razvoja podeželja.
Where it is used to finance the payroll of staff already in post, TA effectively amounts to budget support. 
Če se tehnična pomoč uporablja za financiranje izplačil plač že zaposlenega osebja, dejansko predstavlja proračunsko podporo.
The problems this raises are considered below. 
Problemi, ki se pri tem pojavljajo, so obravnavani v nadaljevanju.
The opportunity cost of TA funding 46 Given the loose definition of TA and the costs associated with running the CAP funds (see Box 1), it is hardly surprising that Member States, like the Commission, have increasingly com‐ mitted their TA spending to adminis‐ trative costs which are ancillary to rural development funding or fall within non‐operational budgets. 
Oportunitetni stroški financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči 46 Glede na ohlapno opredelitev tehnične pomoči in stroškov, povezanih z upravljanjem sredstev SKP (glej okvir 1), ni presenetljivo, da so države članice enako kot Komisija vse bolj sprejemale obveznosti za porabo za tehnično pomoč za administrativne stroške, ki pri financiranju razvoja podeželja pomenijo dodatne stroške ali pa spadajo v neoperativne proračune.
The problem is that it is inherently difficult to gauge the value for money of such costs, or to demonstrate that using TA funding in this way contributes usefully and efficiently to the impact of the ‘larger envelope’ of rural development aid. 
Problem predstavlja, da je samo po sebi težko oceniti stroškovno učinkovitost takih stroškov ali dokazati, da taka uporaba financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči koristno in učinkovito prispeva k učinku širše ovojnice pomoči za razvoj podeželja.
47 The greater the share of overall EAFRD funding assigned by the Member States to TA activities, the less the money available for the core measures in rural development, where there is more immediate benefit to farm‐ ers and rural communities. 
47 Čim večji je delež skupnega financiranja iz EKSRP, ki ga države članice namenijo za dejavnosti tehnične pomoči, tem manj denarja je na voljo za temeljne ukrepe na področju razvoja podeželja, ki bolj neposredno koristijo kmetom in podeželskim skupnostim.
Where TA amounts to no more than budget sup‐ port, that expense is, in effect, borne by final beneficiaries. 
Če tehnična pomoč ni nič več kot proračunska podpora, ta strošek dejansko nosijo končni upravičenci.
19 Metis GmbH, Co‐financing salaries, bonuses, top‐ups from Structural Funds during the 2007–13 period, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2014. 
19 Metis GmbH, Co‐financing salaries, bonuses, top‐ups from Structural Funds during the 2007‐2013 period, Urad za publikacije Evropske unije, Luxembourg, 2014.
20 Ibid., p. 
20 Prav tam, str.
Observations 22 48 In one sense, given the variations in co‐financing rates, the risk is greater for the needier beneficiaries of EU funds. 
Opažanja 22 48 Po eni strani je glede na nihanja stopenj sofinanciranja tveganje večje za tiste upravičence do sredstev EU, ki pomoč bolj potrebujejo.
For 2007–13, the EAFRD con‐ tribution ceiling was 50 % in Austria and northern Italy but 75 % in ‘Con‐ vergence’ regions, which included Lithuania, Hungary and Poland. 
V obdobju 2007– 2013 je zgornja meja prispevkov iz EKSRP v Avstriji in severni Italiji znašala 50 %, v konvergenčnih regijah, ki so zajemale Poljsko, Madžarsko in Litvo, pa 75 %.
The prospect of a 3:1 contribution ratio can give Member States an additional in‐ centive to spend, but some of the po‐ tential advantage is lost if a significant percentage of co‐financing is diverted to non‐operational purposes. 
Obet, da bo razmerje prispevka 3 : 1, lahko da državam članicam dodatno spodbudo za porabo, vendar se nekaj potencialne koristi izgubi, če se bistven odstotek sofinanciranja preusmeri v neoperativne namene.
49 Use of EU funds in this manner, though relatively minor in percentage terms, diverts substantial sums from the key objectives of funding. 
49 Takšna uporaba sredstev EU je v od-stotkovnem smislu sicer dokaj majhna, vendar odvrača znatne zneske od ključnih ciljev financiranja.
Allowing admin‐ istrative costs under TA places both the Commission and the Member States in a position of conflict of interest. 
Dovoljeva-nje, da se administrativni stroški vključijo v tehnično pomoč, za Komisijo in države članice povzroča navzkrižje interesov.
As managers of the CAP, they decide how much should be spent on different measures, including TA, with the aim of achieving the best value for money. 
Kot upraviteljice SKP se odločajo, koliko naj se porabi za različne ukrepe, vključno s tehnično pomočjo, da bi dosegle čim večjo stroškovno učinkovitost.
At the same time, as beneficiaries of TA paid in respect of administrative expenditure, they have an incentive to maximise payments towards the necessary costs of programme man‐ agement (see Box 1). 
Hkrati so upravičenke do tehnične pomoči, izplačane za administrativne odhodke, kar jih spodbuja, da bi čim bolj povečale plačila za potrebne stroške upravljanja programa (glej okvir 1).
Technical assistance and the costs of programme management Implementation of both the EAGF and the EAFRD entails a certain administrative outlay. 
Tehnična pomoč in stroški upravljanja programa Z izvajanjem EKJS in EKSRP so povezani določeni administrativni stroški.
At EU level, as well as setting up and managing the funds, the Commission was required to establish the ENRD, which is explicitly linked to TA spending. 
Na ravni EU je morala Komisija ob vzpostavitvi in upravljanju skladov vzpostaviti tudi Evropsko mrežo za razvoj podeželja, ki je eksplicitno povezana s porabo za tehnično pomoč.
In the Member States, the national and/or regional authorities were charged with implementing a panoply of measures which may necessitate new administrative arrangements. 
V državah članicah so bili nacionalni in/ali regionalni organi zadolženi za izvajanje cele vrste ukrepov, zaradi česar bodo morda potrebne nove administrativne ureditve.
The basic legislation governing the CAP requires them to do everything in their power to protect the Union’s financial interests. 
Osnovna zakonodaja, ki ureja SKP, zahteva, da storijo vse, kar je v njihovi moči, za zaščito finančnih interesov Unije.
To that end, com‐ pulsory measures were specified in the EAFRD regulation under sections headed 'Management and control', 'Information and publicity', and 'Monitoring and evaluation'. 
Zato so bili v uredbi o EKSRP določeni obvezni ukrepi, in sicer v oddelkih „Upravljanje in nadzor”, „Informiranje in obveščanje javnosti” ter „Spremljanje in vrednotenje”.
Together with the requirement for local devel‐ opment strategies, local action groups and national rural development networks, those measures exposed Member States to substantial costs in connection with the delivery of aid, as illustrated hereunder. 
Zaradi teh ukrepov ter zaradi zahteve po lokalnih razvojnih strategijah, lokalnih akcijskih skupinah in nacionalnih mrežah za razvoj podeželja so bile države članice pri zagotavljanju pomoči izpostavljene znatnim stroškom, kot je prikazano v nadaljevanju.
In its activity report for 2013, DG Agriculture and Rural Development summarised the Member States’ report‐ ing of their total spending on checks and controls of Pillar I and Pillar II certified payments21. 
GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja je v svojem poročilu o dejavnostih za leto 2013 povzel poročila držav članic o njihovi skupni porabi za preglede in kontrole za potrjena plačila v okviru prvega in drugega stebra21.
Under Pillar I, the costs of control bodies (including payroll, training, maintenance and building expenses) accounted for ap‐ proximately 5.13 % of total spending on EAGF measures. 
V okviru prvega stebra so stroški za kontrolne organe (vključno z izplačili plač, usposabljanjem ter stroški vzdrževanja in gradenj) predstavljali približno 5,13 % skupne porabe za ukrepe EKJS.
There is next to no TA provision for Member States under Pillar I, so this amount cannot benefit from any EU co‐financing. 
V okviru tega stebra za države članice ni praktično nobene pravice do tehnične pomoči, zato za ta znesek ni mogoče uporabiti sofinanciranja EU.
Under Pillar II, the corresponding figure calculated on the basis of the Member States’ reports was 8.13 %. 
V okviru drugega stebra je ustrezni znesek, izračunan na podlagi poročil držav članic, znašal 8,13 %.
In these circumstances, the incentive to recover the maximum amount under TA is strong, and has led certain Member States to set their budgets at or close to the 4 % ceiling. 
V teh razmerah je spodbuda za pridobitev najvišjega zneska v okviru tehnične pomoči velika in zaradi nje so nekatere države članice določile svoje proračune na 4-odstotno zgornjo mejo ali blizu nje.
21 http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/doc/agri_aar_2013.pdf Box 1 
21 http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/doc/agri_aar_2013.pdf Okvir 1
Observations 23 50 In adding to Member States’ au‐ tonomy, the current TA arrangements have thus strengthened their reliance on EU money, which is increasingly used in areas with no clear impact on strengthening and developing capa‐ city. 
Opažanja 23 50 Sedanje ureditve za tehnično pomoč so povečale avtonomijo držav članic, s tem pa okrepile zanašanje teh držav na sredstva EU, ki se vse bolj uporabljajo na področjih, ki nimajo jasnega učinka na krepitev in razvoj zmogljivosti.
During the audit, the Polish and Lithuanian authorities expressed dis‐ satisfaction with the imprecision in the rules, as well as an interest in receiving further guidance from the Commission on more efficient and effective ways of using TA. 
Poljski in litovski organi so med revizijo izrazili nezadovoljstvo z nenatančnostjo pravil in interes po dodatnih navodilih Komisije o učinkovitejših in uspešnejših načinih uporabe tehnične pomoči.
51 The current high allocation rate of TA funds to administrative costs looks set to endure through the 2014–20 period. 
51 Kaže, da se bo sedanja visoka stopnja dodelitve sredstev tehnične pomoči za administrativne stroške v obdobju 2014–2020 ohranila.
Four of the five Member States visited explained that they still see TA essen‐ tially as a tool with which to finance the basic implementation structure of their RDPs22. 
Štiri od petih obiskanih držav članic so pojasnile, da je zanje tehnična pomoč v bistvu še vedno orodje, s katerim financirajo osnovno izvajalsko strukturo svojih programov razvoja podeželja22.
Moreover, TA now repre‐ sents a greater overall proportion of total spending. 
Poleg tega tehnična pomoč zdaj predstavlja večji skupni delež skupne porabe.
As can be seen from the Annex, although the aggregate rural development budget for all Mem‐ ber States is smaller in the new period, the total amount earmarked for TA (1.9 billion euro) is 24 % higher. 
Iz Priloge je razvidno, da je agregi-ran proračun za razvoj podeželja za vse države članice v novem obdobju sicer manjši, vendar je skupni znesek, namenjen tehnični pomoči (1,9 milijarde EUR), 24 % večji.
Are the costs eligible? 
Ali so stroški upravičeni?
Some formal ineligibility at the Commission 52 At the Commission, the Court exam‐ ined 20 DG Agriculture and Rural De‐ velopment projects from the audited period in all areas of TA. 
Nekaj formalne neupravičenosti na Komisiji 52 Sodišče je na Komisiji preučilo 20 projektov GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja iz revidiranega obdobja in z vseh področij tehnične pomoči.
Four projects were found to contain irregulari‐ ties, in each case because incorrect use was made of the EAGF non‐op‐ erational budget. 
Pri štirih projektih so se pokazale nepravilnosti, vsakič zaradi nepravilne uporabe neoperativnega proračuna EKJS.
Three of the four (51 500 euro for the purchase of 40 laptops, 10 000 euro for the purchase of software licences and 13 800 euro for a firewall maintenance contract) were exclusively assigned to the EAGF although they were also of benefit under Pillar II. 
Trije od štirih (51 500 EUR za nakup 40 prenosnih računalnikov, 10 000 EUR za nakup licenc za programsko opremo in 13 800 EUR za pogodbo o vzdrževanju požarnega zidu) so bili dodeljeni izključno EKJS, čeprav so bili koristni tudi v okviru drugega stebra.
The fourth item was a TA grant of 278 000 euro paid to the OECD, which was also included under the EAGF budget although previous payments under the same grant agree‐ ment had been funded — correctly — from the general CAP coordination chapter. 
Četrta postavka so bila nepovratna sredstva za tehnično pomoč v višini 278 000 EUR, izplačana OECD. Tudi ta so bila zajeta v proračun EKJS, čeprav so bila prejšnja plačila v okviru istega sporazuma o nepovratnih sredstvih (pravilno) financirana iz splošnega poglavja o usklajevanju SKP.
53 All procurement relating to the 20 selected projects was free of any major non‐compliance issues. 
53 V javnih naročilih, povezanih z 20 izbranimi projekti, ni bilo nobenih večjih zadev v zvezi z neskladnostjo.
Procedures were correctly chosen and advertised and then implemented as statutorily required. 
Postopki so bili pravilno izbrani in oglaševani, nato pa izvedeni, kot določa zakonodaja.
22 The exception is Hungary, which has decided to limit its TA funding for 2014–20 to the operation of the national rural network and related activities, at a total rate of 2.4 %. 
22 Izjema je Madžarska, ki se je svoje financiranje v okviru tehnične pomoči za obdobje 2014–2020 odločila omejiti na delovanje nacionalne mreže za podeželje in s tem povezane dejavnosti, in sicer pri skupni stopnji 2,4 %.
All other rural development financing needs are to be met from the national budget. 
Vse druge potrebe po financiranju razvoja podeželja naj bi se pokrile iz nacionalnega proračuna.
Observations 24 More frequent problems in the Member States 54 The audit revealed many cases of irreg‐ ular funding from Pillar II TA in the five audited Member States. 
Opažanja 24 Pogostejši problemi v državah članicah 54 Pri reviziji so bili v petih revidiranih državah članicah odkriti številni primeri nepravilnega financiranja iz tehnične pomoči v okviru drugega stebra.
Of the 91 TA projects reviewed, ineligible or partly ineligible expenditure was found in 35. 
Od 91 pregledanih projektov tehnične pomoči so bili neupravičeni ali delno neupravičeni odhodki ugotovljeni pri 35 projektih.
The main problems relate either to the use of funding for activities shared by both pillars (and thus not eligible in full) or to issues with contracting and procurement. 
Glavni problemi se nanašajo na uporabo financiranja za dejavnosti, ki spadajo pod oba stebra (in zato niso v celoti upravičene), ali na zadeve, povezane s sklepanjem pogodb in javnim naročanjem.
Some projects had both types of irregularity. 
Pri nekaterih projektih sta se pojavili obe vrsti nepravilnosti.
Some Member State activities not exclusive to Pillar II 55 As already noted, Article 13 of the CAP financing regulation expressly prohibited any funding for adminis‐ trative and staff costs in connection with the EAGF (Pillar I). 
Nekatere dejavnosti držav članic, ki ne spadajo samo v okvir drugega stebra 55 Kot je bilo že omenjeno, je člen 13 uredbe o financiranju SKP izrecno prepovedoval vsako financiranje administrativnih stroškov in stroškov osebja v zvezi z EKJS (prvi steber).
In the Mem‐ ber States, however, we found that 25 of the audited projects included TA payments made under Pillar II for administrative costs actually incurred in connection with Pillar I or for activi‐ ties otherwise unrelated to the EAFRD. 
Toda v državah članicah smo ugotovili, da je 25 od revidiranih projektov vključevalo plačila tehnične pomoči, opravljena v okviru drugega stebra za administrativne stroške, ki so dejansko nastali v zvezi s prvim stebrom, ali za dejavnosti, ki sicer niso povezane z EKSRP.
The risk of this occurring is particularly high where purchases or projects are shared between Pillar I and Pillar II. 
Tveganje, da se to zgodi, je zlasti visoko, če nakupi ali projekti hkrati sodijo v okvir prvega in drugega stebra.
In such cases, part of the expenditure is of course ineligible and should not be co‐financed. 
V takih primerih del odhodkov seveda ni upravičen in ne bi smel biti sofinanciran.
56 The examples in Box 2 show that there is a risk of irregular expenditure be‐ cause of deficiencies in record‐keep‐ ing, the use of coefficients or other administrative procedures linked to what is an overly complex, and some‐ what arbitrary, distinction between expenditure in two very similar areas of activity. 
56 Primeri v okviru 2 kažejo, da obstaja tveganje nepravilnih odhodkov zaradi pomanjkljivosti pri vodenju evidenc, uporabi koeficientov ali drugih administrativnih odhodkih, povezanih s pretirano zapletenim in nekoliko nak-ljučnim razlikovanjem med odhodki na dveh zelo podobnih področjih dejavnosti.
All else being equal, it is unclear why administrative and staff costs should be disallowed under Pil‐ lar I but not under Pillar II. 
Če ni drugih razlik, ni jasno, zakaj administrativni stroški in stroški osebja ne bi bili dovoljeni v okviru prvega stebra, v okviru drugega stebra pa.
Observations 25 Risk of ineligibility where costs are shared with Pillar I Most examples of cost‐sharing concerned the remuneration of staff handling both RDP and non‐RDP activi‐ ties, especially where there was insufficient evidence to justify the proportion of pay charged to Pillar II. 
Opažanja 25 Tveganje neupravičenosti, če so stroški deljeni s prvim stebrom Večina primerov delitve stroškov se je nanašala na prejemke osebja, ki so se hkrati ukvarjali z dejavnostmi, povezanimi s programom razvoja podeželja, in drugimi dejavnosti, zlasti takrat, kadar ni bilo dovolj dokazov, ki bi upravičili delež plačila, zaračunan v okviru drugega stebra.
In Lithuania, it could not be shown that the coefficients used to assign costs to RDP duties were accurate, and therefore the eligibility of expenditure claims could not be verified. 
V Litvi ni bilo mogoče dokazati, da so bili za dodeljevanje stroškov za naloge, povezane s programom razvoja podeželja, uporabljeni točni koeficienti, zato ni bilo mogoče preveriti upravičenosti zahtevkov za odhodke.
In Hungary, staff costs were meant to be eligible only in respect of officials assigned full time to activities specifically linked to the 2007–13 RDP. 
Na Madžarskem je bilo predvideno, da bodo stroški osebja upravičeni samo za uradnike, ki s polnim delovnim časom opravljajo dejavnosti, specifično povezane s programom razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2007–2013.
However, some staff handling TA were employed in departments with regular duties going beyond the RDP (ministerial secretariats, financial and legal units), but with no real assurance that they were engaged full time on RDP activities. 
Toda nekaj osebja, ki je delalo na področju tehnične pomoči, je bilo zaposlenega v oddelkih, v katerih so bile običajne naloge širše od programa razvoja podeželja (sekretariati na ministrstvih, finančne in prave enote).
Similar cases to these were found in Poland and Austria. 
Podobni primeri so bili ugotovljeni na Poljskem in v Avstriji.