natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Examples of inadequately‐worded objectives from the programming documents of Member States The Lithuanian objectives included the following: ‘to ensure appropriate preparation, efficient implementa‐ tion and evaluation of the programme [...] to ensure the appropriate presentation of and publicity for infor‐ mation [...] to ensure accessibility of information’. 
Primeri neustrezno ubesedenih ciljev iz programskih dokumentov držav članic V Litvi so cilji zajemali zagotovitev ustrezne priprave, učinkovitega izvajanja in vrednotenja programa, da se zagotovi ustrezna predstavitev informacij in obveščanje javnosti o njih zaradi zagotovitve dostopnosti informacij.
The Polish objectives were essentially limited to a recital of the activities covered by Articles 66 and 68 of the EAFRD regulation. 
Cilji na Poljskem so bili v bistvu omejeni na naštevanje dejavnosti iz členov 66 in 68 uredbe o EKSRP.
Thus, although in line with the regulatory requirements, they did not specify the antici‐ pated results or impacts of TA, or address how TA performance is to be measured. 
Tako so sicer bili v skladu z regulativnimi zahtevami, niso pa določali pričakovanih rezultatov ali učinkov tehnične pomoči ali obravnavali tega, kako naj se meri smotrnost poslovanja pri tehnični pomoči.
Observations 31 Limited monitoring and evaluation 71 The financial regulation makes cer‐ tain stipulations for the Commission’s monitoring and evaluation activities. 
Opažanja 31 Omejeno spremljanje in vrednotenje 71 Finančna uredba vsebuje nekatere določbe za dejavnosti spremljanja in vrednotenja, ki jih izvaja Komisija.
Essentially, annual reports are to be is‐ sued to the budgetary authority on the achievement of objectives assessed against performance indicators32. 
V bistvu se letna poročila o doseganju ciljev, ki se ocenjuje glede na kazalnike smotrnosti poslovanja, posredujejo proračunskemu organu32.
74 At the Commission, therefore, the monitoring and evaluation of TA fund‐ ing are just as limited as the planning of TA. 
74 Zato sta na Komisiji spremljanje in vrednotenje financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči enako omejena kot načrtovanje tehnične pomoči.
There are no criteria making the link to overall programme perfor‐ mance, but there is an overwhelming focus on financial and other purely administrative aspects, such as respect for expenditure ceilings and contract execution deadlines. 
Ni meril, ki bi ju povezovala s splošno smotrnostjo poslovanja programa, zelo močna pa je osredotočenost na finančne in druge povsem administrativne vidike, kot so spoštovanje zgornjih mej odhodkov in rokov za izvedbo pogodb.
75 The situation is very similar in the Member States, again because TA does not appear in the CMEF. 
75 V državah članicah je stanje zelo podobno, tudi zato, ker tehnične pomoči ni v CMEF.
The Commis‐ sion’s monitoring of Member States’ RDPs is limited to checks of budgetary implementation and compliance with the 4 % ceiling. 
Spremljanje programov razvoja podeželja držav članic, ki ga izvaja Komisija, je omejeno na preglede proračunskega izvrševanja in skladnosti z zgornjo mejo v višini 4 %.
The Member States’ own principal monitoring tool is the annual progress report each produces on its RDP, but the annual progress reports on three of the six RDPs exam‐ ined contained no evaluation of TA. 
Glavno orodje za spremljanje, ki ga uporabljajo države članice, je letno poročilo o napredku, ki ga vsaka od teh držav pripravi za svoj program razvoja podeželja, vendar pa letna poročila o napredku za tri od šestih preučenih programov niso vsebovala vrednotenja tehnične pomoči.
Where such an evaluation was given, moreover, the lack of performance and impact indicators or clear guidelines for presentation limited the scope of monitoring to the financial execution. 
Poleg tega je bil v primerih, ko je bilo tako vrednotenje omenjeno, obseg spremljanja omejen na finančno izvrševanje, ker ni bilo kazalnikov smotrnosti poslovanja in učinka ali jasnih smernic za predstavitev.
32 Article 27(3) of the 2002 financial regulation. 
32 Člen 27(3) finančne uredbe.
33 Articles 77 to 87 of the EAFRD regulation. 
33 Členi 77 do 87 uredbe o EKSRP.
72 In rural development33, the key points for 2007–13 included the requirement for a common monitoring and evalu‐ ation framework (CMEF) between the Commission and the Member States, with a limited number of indicators common to all RDPs. 
72 Na področju razvoja podeželja so ključne točke za obdobje 2007–2013 zajemale zahtevo po skupnem okviru spremljanja in vrednotenja (CMEF) za Komisijo in države članice, ki bi vseboval omejeno število kazalnikov, skupnih za vse programe razvoja podeže-lja33.
Each Member State was also expected to set addi‐ tional indicators allowing the progress, efficiency and effectiveness of its RDP to be measured at all stages of imple‐ mentation. 
Od vsake države članice se je tudi pričakovalo, da bo določila dodatne kazalnike, ki bodo omogočali merjenje napredka, učinkovitosti in uspešnosti njenega programa razvoja podeželja na vseh stopnjah izvajanja.
There was to be an annual progress report to the Commission, and also ex ante, mid‐term and ex post evaluations of programme quality, ef‐ ficiency and effectiveness. 
Komisiji naj bi bilo vsako leto posredovano letno poročilo o napredku, predhodno pa tudi vmesno in naknadno vrednotenje kakovosti, učinkovitosti in uspešnosti programa.
73 The CMEF was established as required. In line, however, with the view that TA is not subject to performance requirements, it was not mentioned in general guidance on the CMEF and was also absent from the description of measures and common indicators. 
73 CMEF je bil vzpostavljen, kot je bilo zahtevano, vendar pa v skladu s stališčem, da za tehnično pomoč ne veljajo zahteve v zvezi s smotrnostjo poslovanja, ni bil omenjen v splošnih navodilih za CMEF, pa tudi ne v opisu ukrepov in skupnih kazalnikov.
Observations 32 The impact of an inadequate performance framework 76 It is for the Commission, as the body responsible for the execution of the EU budget, to guarantee sound financial management of the EAFRD. 
Opažanja 32 Učinek neustreznega okvira smotrnosti poslovanja 76 Komisija mora kot organ, ki je odgovoren za izvrševanje proračuna EU, zagotavljati dobro finančno poslovodenje EKSRP.
This task includes offering strong guidance on the efficient and effective use of TA. 
Del te naloge je dajanje dobrih navodil o učinkoviti in uspešni uporabi tehnične pomoči.
However, by not defining its own TA needs as part of a performance frame‐ work, and by not insisting that the Member States do likewise, the Com‐ mission has deprived itself of a tool for assessing the global impact of TA spending and thus targeting funding where it will be most beneficial. 
Ker Komisija ni opredelila svojih potreb po tehnični pomoči kot del okvira smotrnosti poslovanja in ker ni vztrajala, da to storijo države članice, ni imela orodja za ocenjevanje skupnega učinka porabe za tehnično pomoč in usmerjanje financiranja tja, kjer bi bilo najbolj koristno.
77 A performance framework would also be useful as a basis for proposing TA solutions to specific problems that might arise with the EAFRD. 
77 Okvir smotrnosti poslovanja bi bil koristna osnova za predlaganje rešitev v zvezi s tehnično pomočjo za posebne probleme, ki bi se lahko pojavili pri EKSRP.
When, in 2011 and 2012, the Commission invited all Member States to develop action plans for reducing the unacceptable error rate in rural development, an opportunity was lost to identify TA as a means of facilitating or supporting remedial action. 
Ko je Komisija v letih 2011 in 2012 pozvala vse države članice, naj razvijejo akcijske načrte za zmanjšanje nesprejemljive stopnje napake na področju razvoja podeželja, ni bila izkoriščena priložnost, da bi bila tehnična pomoč opredeljena kot sredstvo za lajšanje ali podpiranje popravljalnih ukrepov.
78 To the extent that the elements of planning, monitoring and evaluation required by the financial regulation are in place at the Commission and in Member States, they cover operational activities rather than the administra‐ tive expenditure which now accounts for the largest share of TA budgets. 
78 Zdajšnji obseg elementov načrtovanja, spremljanja in vrednotenja, ki jih zahteva finančna uredba, na Komisiji in v državah članicah zajema operativne dejavnosti in ne administrativnih odhodkov, ki so zdaj največji del proračunov za tehnično pomoč.
One key reason is that it is very dif‐ ficult to plan and assess the contribu‐ tion of payroll, for example, to overall programme performance. 
Eden od ključnih razlogov za to je, da je zelo težko načrtovati in ocenjevati, kakšen je, na primer, prispevek izplačila plač k skupni smotrnosti poslovanja pri programu.
This type of spending is far less compatible than operational expenditure with the need to demonstrate compliance with the principles of sound financial management. 
Taka vrsta porabe je v primerjavi z operativnimi odhodki veliko manj združljiva s potrebo, da se dokaže skladnost z načeli dobrega finančnega poslovodenja.
Networking: potential for an effective performance framework 79 The ENRD34 is the only component of TA at the Commission to be explicitly defined in the EU’s agriculture and rural development legislation. 
Mreženje: potencial za uspešen okvir smotrnosti poslovanja 79 Evropska mreža za razvoj podeželja34 je edina komponenta tehnične pomoči na Komisiji, ki je izrecno opredeljena v zakonodaji EU za področje kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja.
The ENRD has clear aims linked to the con‐ solidation and strengthening of rural development practices and capacity throughout the Union. 
Mreža ima jasne cilje, povezane s konsolidacijo ter krepitvijo praks razvoja podeželja in zmogljivosti po vsej Uniji.
80 One of the ENRD’s tasks is to support national rural networks (NRNs) in the Member States, which are also funded from TA35. 
80 Ena od nalog mreže je podpora nacionalnim mrežam za podeželje v državah članicah, ki so prav tako financirane iz tehnične pomoči35.
An absolute ceiling of 25 % of each NRN’s allocation was estab‐ lished for the necessary administrative structures36, with the remainder to be spent on an action plan containing specified information and capaci‐ ty‐strengthening activities37. 
Za potrebne administrativne strukture je bila določena absolutna zgornja meja v višini 25 % dodelitve za vsako nacionalno mrežo za podeželje36, preostanek pa naj bi bil porabljen za akcijski načrt s specifičnimi informacijami in dejavnostmi za krepitev zmogljivosti37.
34 Established in accordance with Article 67 of the EAFRD regulation. 
34 Vzpostavljena v skladu s členom 67 uredbe o EKSRP.
35 Under Article 68 of the EAFRD regulation. 
35 V skladu s členom 68 uredbe oEKSRP.
36 Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006. 
36 Člen 41(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1974/2006.
37 ‘[...] at least the identification and analysis of good transferable practices and the provision of information about them, network management, the organisation of exchanges of experience and know‐how, the preparation of training programmes for local action groups in the process of formation and technical assistance for inter‐territorial and transnational cooperation.’ 
37 „[...] vsaj identifikacijo in analizo prenosljivih dobrih praks ter zbiranje informacij o njih, upravljanje mreže, organizacijo izmenjave izkušenj in znanja, pripravo programov usposabljanja za lokalne akcijske skupine v postopku nastajanja ter tehnično pomoč za medregijsko in čezmejno sodelovanje.”
Observations 33 81 In the case of both the ENRD and the national networks, therefore, the legi‐ slation set more precise guidelines as to the uses of TA funding, with a clear distinction between what is opera‐ tional and what is not. 
Opažanja 33 81 Za Evropsko mrežo za razvoj podeželja in nacionalne mreže so v zakonodaji torej določene natančnejše smernice za uporabo financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči z jasnim razlikovanjem med operativnim in neoperativnim.
Most network spending is theoretically compatible with a performance framework, which should make it easier to ensure the co‐ herence of TA activities in this area and should facilitate evaluation and verifi‐ cation in line with the general princi‐ ples of sound financial management. 
Večina porabe za mreže je teoretično združljiva z okvirom smotrnosti poslovanja, kar bi moralo olajšati zagotavljanje skladnosti dejavnosti tehnične pomoči na tem področju in preverjanje, ki je v skladu s splošnimi načeli dobrega finančnega poslovodenja.
82 However, network activities were often characterised by the same incomplete planning, monitoring and evaluation as TA in rural development as a whole. 
82 Kljub temu pa so bila za dejavnosti mreže pogosto značilna enako nepopolno načrtovanje, spremljanje in vrednotenje kot pri tehnični pomoči na področju razvoja podeželja kot celoti.
Generally speaking, their impact is hard to assess — although an exception can be made for the Ital‐ ian NRN (see Box 6), which is in some respects a model for TA planning and operation. 
Na splošno je težko oceniti njihov učinek, čeprav je pri tem morda izjema italijanska nacionalna mreža za podeželje (glej okvir 6), ki je v nekaterih vidikih vzor za načrtovanje in delovanje tehnične pomoči.
The Italian NRN38 as an example of a functioning performance framework The audit found that the Italian NRN has largely achieved its global operational objectives (improved govern‐ ance, managerial and administrative capacity‐building, the sharing of knowledge and good practices), and that it has offered effective coordination and support for Italy’s regional RDPs (through data collation and consultancy) while also promoting transnational cooperation. 
Italijanska nacionalna mreža za podeželje38 kot primer delujočega okvira smotrnosti poslovanja Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da je italijanska nacionalna mreža za podeželje v veliki meri dosegla svoje skupne operativne cilje (izboljšano upravljanje, vzpostavljanje upravljavskih in administrativnih zmogljivosti, izmenjava znanja in dobrih praks) ter uspešno usklajevala in podpirala italijanske regionalne programe razvoja podeželja (z združevanjem podatkov in svetovanjem), hkrati pa spodbujala transnacionalno sodelovanje.
The NRN has a popular website and organises a varied range of initiatives and events. 
Nacionalna mreža za podeželje ima spletno stran z velikim številom obiskov in organizira raznolike pobude in prireditve.
Its communication activities are very broad‐based (including a web community for young farmers and school projects). 
Njene komunikacijske dejavnosti so zelo široko zasnovane (vključno s spletno skupnostjo za mlade kmete in šolskimi projekti).
To identify and promote good practices, video competi‐ tions have been organised for young farmers, and the winners’ work has been uploaded to the NRN website. 
Za ugotovitev in spodbujanje dobrih praks so bila organizirana videotekmovanja za mlade kmete, zmagovalčevo delo pa je bilo naloženo na spletno stran mreže.
The NRN’s achievements and success with its stakeholders are due in part to detailed planning of operational outputs. 
Za dosežke mreže in njen uspeh pri deležnikih je deloma odgovorno podrobno načrtovanje operativnih izložkov.
The NRN is then monitored and evaluated against a range of indicators accompanied by target val‐ ues. 
Mreža se nato spremlja in vrednoti s pomočjo številnih kazalnikov, ki jih spremljajo ciljne vrednosti.
A set of output indicators (e.g. meetings held, guidelines published) relate to specific programme actions, while result indicators (customer satisfaction rates, dissemination of good practices) and impact indicators (number of key players involved in governance, public perception of the visibility of RD policies) have been established for the NRN as a whole. 
Niz kazalnikov izložkov (npr. prirejeni sestanki, objavljene smernice) zajema posebne ukrepe programa, kazalniki rezultatov (stopnje zadovoljstva strank, razširjanje dobrih praks) in učinka (število ključnih akterjev, ki sodelujejo pri upravljanju, razpoznavnost politik razvoja podeželja po dojemanju javnosti) pa so bili vzpostavljeni za mrežo kot celoto.
Finally, the NRN programme takes account of the ex ante and ongoing evaluations of TA funding. 
Poleg tega so pri programu nacionalne mreže za podeželje upoštevana predhodna in tekoča vrednotenja financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči.
All the recommendations made in 2010 by the independent mid‐term evaluator concerning the need for an indica‐ tor framework common to all TA actions were taken up by the Italian authorities with a view to improving the quality of monitoring. 
Italijanski organi so zaradi izboljšanja kakovosti spremljanja sprejeli vsa priporočila, ki jih je glede potrebe po okviru kazalnikov, skupnem za vse ukrepe tehnične pomoči, leta 2010 pripravil neodvisni izvajalec vmesnega vrednotenja.
38 Italy is one of a handful of Member States with a system of regional RDPs. 
38 Italija je ena od redkih držav članic s sistemom regionalnih programov razvoja podeželja.
What this means is that the NRN doubles as a coordination and support body for the regions in all areas of rural development policy, not just as a TA measure. 
To pomeni, da je nacionalna mreža za podeželje usklajevalni in podporni organ za regije na vseh področjih razvoja podeželja, ne le ukrep tehnične pomoči.
It is therefore subject, as if it were a national RDP, to the requirements of the CMEF. 
Zato pri tem veljajo zahteve CMEF, enako kot če bi šlo za nacionalni program razvoja podeželja.
Conclusions and 34 recommendations 83 Overall, the Court concludes that ow‐ ing to the absence of a suitable perfor‐ mance framework for TA expenditure in agriculture and rural development, neither the Commission nor the Mem‐ ber States are able to demonstrate how well TA has contributed to the general policy objectives of the CAP. 
Zaključki in priporočila 83 Ker ni ustreznega okvira smotrnosti poslovanja za odhodke za tehnično pomoč na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja, Sodišče meni, da Komisija in države članice ne morejo dokazati, kako dobro je tehnična pomoč prispevala k splošnim ciljem politik SKP.
84 Despite the significant amounts in‐ volved, the legislative framework does not clearly define TA, and the rules are vague about how it can be used. 
34 84 Kljub velikim zadevnim zneskom zakonodajni okvir ne opredeljuje jasno tehnične pomoči in pravila o njeni uporabi so ohlapna.
The audit showed that the Commission and the Member States have taken full advantage of this situation. However, the freedom of choice has resulted in a lack of rigour (paragraph 28). 
Revizija je pokazala, da so Komisija in države članice izkoristile to stanje, vendar je zaradi svobodne izbire premalo strogosti (odstavek 28).
The Commission has not developed com‐ prehensive guidelines on TA funding, either internally or for the Member States (paragraphs 30 and 37). 
Komisija ni ne interno ne za države članice pripravila izčrpnih smernic za financiranje v okviru tehnične pomoči (odstavka 30 in 37).
85 At the Commission, the distinction between operational expenditure and general administrative costs has become blurred. 
85 Na Komisiji se je razlikovanje med operativnimi odhodki in splošnimi administrativnimi stroški zameglilo.
Spending on IT maintenance in particular is an increas‐ ingly prominent part of the TA budget (paragraphs 32 to 35). 
Zlasti poraba za vzdrževanje informacijske tehnologije je vse večji del proračuna za tehnično pomoč (odstavki 32 do 35).
Meanwhile, four of the five audited Member States re‐ ported administrative costs as making up the largest share of their spending on TA, with an emphasis on payroll. 
Hkrati so štiri od petih revidiranih držav članic poročale, da administrativni stroški pomenijo največji delež njihove porabe za tehnično pomoč, s poudarkom na izplačilu plač.
In situations where the staff concerned would be required in any case to implement policy, this use of TA ef‐ fectively amounts to budget support. 
V primerih, ko bi zadevno osebje v vsakem primeru moralo izvajati politiko, je taka uporaba tehnične pomoči dejansko proračunska podpora.
It is now standard practice in many EU policy areas to fund payroll from TA (paragraphs 39 to 45). 
Na veliko področjih EU je zdaj običajna praksa, da se izplačila plač financirajo s tehnično pomočjo (odstavki 39 do 45).
Conclusions and recommendations 35 89 Moreover, it is inherently difficult to gauge value for money in the context of administrative costs. 
Zaključki in priporočila 35 89 Poleg tega je pri administrativnih stroških samo po sebi težko oceniti stroškovno učinkovitost.
Thus, although the absorption of such costs by TA is likely to contribute in some ways to achievement of the policy objectives of the CAP, it is virtually impossible to make a reliable assessment of this contribution and, in particular, to dem‐ onstrate that this form of TA spending represents better value for money than direct spending on the core CAP measures (paragraphs 46 to 48). 
Absorpcija takih stroškov v tehnično pomoč bo sicer na nek način verjetno prispevala k doseganju ciljev politik SKP, vendar pa je praktično nemogoče zanesljivo oceniti ta prispevek, zlasti pa dokazati, da ta oblika porabe za tehnično pomoč pomeni večjo stroškovno učinkovitost kot neposredna poraba za temeljne ukrepe SKP (odstavki 46 do 48).
90 Additionally, allowing administrative costs under TA puts both the Commis‐ sion and the Member States in a posi‐ tion of conflict of interest. 
90 Poleg tega dovoljevanje, da se administrativni stroški vključijo v tehnično pomoč, za Komisijo in države članice povzroča navzkrižje interesov.
As mana‐ gers 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 management (para‐ graph 49). 
Hkrati so upravičenke do tehnične pomoči, izplačane za administrativne odhodke, kar jih spodbuja, da bi čim bolj povečale plačila za potrebne stroške upravljanja programa (odstavek 49).
Recommendation 1 The Commission should clarify the scope and application of TA. 
Priporočilo 1 Komisija naj razjasni obseg in uporabo tehnične pomoči.
In par‐ ticular, it should clarify the distinc‐ tion between operational/‘capacity‐ building’ expenditure and eligible administrative/‘budget support’ costs, notably in the case of payroll. 
Razjasni naj zlasti razliko med operativnimi odhodki/odhodki za vzpostavljanje zmogljivosti in upravičenimi administrativnimi stroški/ stroški proračunske podpore, zlasti pri izplačilu plač.
The Commission should closely monitor the Member States’ implementation of TA. 
Komisija naj skrbno spremlja, kako države članice izvajajo tehnično pomoč.
Recommendation 2 The Commission should also take appropriate measures to ensure that general administrative expenditure such as regular IT maintenance is not charged to TA budget lines. 
Priporočilo 2 Komisija naj tudi sprejme ustrezne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da se splošni administrativni odhodki, kot so redno vzdrževanje IT, ne zaračunavajo proračunskim vrsticam za tehnično pomoč.
Recommendation 3 The Commission should, in future, require Member States to report administrative/‘budget support’ costs for rural development separately so as to make it more transparent that part of TA funding is spent on such support. 
Priporočilo 3 Komisija naj v prihodnje od držav članic zahteva, da ločeno poročajo o administrativnih stroških/stroških proračunske podpore na področju razvoja podeželja, da bo bolj razvidno, da se del financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči porabi za takšno podporo.
91 The Court found that neither the Com‐ mission nor the Member States have established a suitable performance framework to demonstrate the neces‐ sity and effectiveness of TA funding. 
91 Sodišče je ugotovilo, da niti Komisija niti države članice niso vzpostavile ustreznega okvira smotrnosti poslovanja, s katerim bi dokazale potrebo po financiranju v okviru tehnične pomoči in njegovo uspešnost.