natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
C 295/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.11.2004 IX. 
C 295/4 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 30.11.2004 IX.
The Court found for the Sapard systems that key concepts were included, that procedures were well-documented, that the systems which existed on paper were generally working in practice and that for most files reviewed the checking procedures were followed. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so bili pri sistemih Saparda vključeni ključni koncepti, da so bili postopki dobro dokumentirani, da so sistemi, ki so obstajali na papirju, večinoma delovali v praksi in da so bili pri večini pregledanih datotek uporabljeni postopki preverjanja.
A difficulty was that other related systems, which provided input to the Sapard systems but which did not receive prior approval by the Commission, were not of the same quality. 
Vendar pa drugi sorodni sistemi, ki so dopolnjevali sisteme Saparda, Komisija pa jih ni predhodno odobrila, niso bili enako kakovostni.
This was in particular the case for the national checks on compliance with quality, health and environmental standards, which were found to be insufficient (see paragraphs 61 to 80). 
To še posebej velja za nacionalna preverjanja skladnosti s standardi kakovosti ter zdravstvenimi in okoljskimi standardi, za katere se je ugotovilo, da so bili nezadostni (glej odstavke 61–80).
X. Key implementation problems were that potential beneficiaries lacked own resources, had difficulties in obtaining credit and were faced with heavy administrative procedures. 
X. Ključni problemi izvajanja so bili, da potencialni upravičenci nimajo dovolj lastnih sredstev, da težko dobijo posojila in da se soočajo s težavnimi upravnimi postopki.
The result of this was that Sapard favoured the financially strong and the better organised with sufficient capital or access to loans. 
Zaradi tega je bil Sapard naklonjen finančno močnim in tistim, ki so bolje organizirani in imajo dovolj kapitala ali dostop do posojil.
For smaller farms and firms which have the greatest efforts to make in meeting standards to modernise and increase efficiency, this was a major handicap (see paragraphs 81 to 97). 
Za manjše kmetije in družbe, ki morajo storiti veliko, da bi se prilagodile zahtevam, opraviti posodobitve ter povečati učinkovitost, je bila to velika ovira (glej člene 81–97).
The rules and the checks for private procurement and for general costs were insufficient. 
Pravila in preverjanja zasebnih nabav in splošnih stroškov niso bila zadostna.
Effective checks to prevent the acceptance and payment of overstated invoices were not made (see paragraphs 98 to 109). 
Učinkoviti pregledi za preprečitev sprejetja in plačila precenjenih faktur niso bili opravljeni (glej odstavke 98–109).
INTRODUCTION What is Sapard? 
UVOD Kaj je Sapard?
The Luxembourg European Council of December 1997 took decisions to launch the enlargement process with the objective of preparing the applicant countries for accession to the Union. 
Evropski svet je v Luksemburgu decembra 1997 sklenil, da bo začel proces širitve s ciljem pripraviti države prosilke na pristop k Uniji.
This included an enhanced pre-accession strategy intended to enable the countries of central and eastern Europe to eventually become members of the European Union and, to that end, to align themselves as far as possible with the Community acquis (1). 
To je vključevalo okrepljeno predpristopno strategijo, s katero naj bi se vsem državam Srednje in Vzhodne Evrope omogočilo, da sčasoma postanejo članice Evropske unije in se v ta namen kar najbolje prilagodijo pravnemu redu Skupnosti (1).
As part of the pre-accession strategy, it was decided to increase substantially pre-accession aid: alongside the already existing Phare programme (2), it would comprise a structural instrument and aid for agriculture as from 2000. 
V okviru predpristopne strategije je bilo sklenjeno, da se znatno poveča predpristopna pomoč: poleg že obstoječega programa PHARE (2) bi ta pomoč od leta 2000 obsegala še strukturni instrument in pomoč za kmetijstvo.
Accordingly, the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (Sapard) was launched on 1 January 2000. 
Skladno s tem je bil 1. januarja 2000 uveden Posebni pristopni program za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja (Sapard).
The Sapard Regulation (3) specifies that the objectives of the programme are to: Ń contribute to the implementation of the acquis communautaire concerning the common agricultural policy and related policies, Ń solve priority and specific problems for the sustainable adaptation of the agricultural sector and rural areas in the applicant countries. 
Uredba Sapard (3) določa, da sta cilja programa: — prispevati k izvajanju pravnega reda Evropskih skupnosti v zvezi s skupno kmetijsko politiko in z njo povezanimi politikami, — razrešiti prednostne in posebne probleme za trajnostno prilagoditev kmetijskega sektorja in podeželja v državah prosilkah.
(1) Body of EU law setting out the common rights and obligations which bind the Member States of the European Union. 
(1) Zbirka zakonov EU o skupnih pravicah in obveznostih, ki zavezujejo države članice Evropske unije.
(2) The Phare programme is the first pre-accession instrument and was set up by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3906/1989 of 18 December 1989 (OJ L 375, 23.12.1989). 
(2) Program PHARE je prvi predpristopni instrument, vzpostavljen z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 3906/1989 z dne 18. decembra 1989 (UL L 375, 23.12.1989).
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999) on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period. 
1268/1999 z dne 21. junija 1999 (UL L 161, 26.6.1999) o podpori Skupnosti za predpristopne ukrepe za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja v državah prosilkah Srednje in Vzhodne Evrope v predpristopnem obdobju.
The programme has been managed under Chapter 1 of Title B7 (Pre-accession strategy) of the budget (4). 
Program se vodi pod poglavjem 1 naslova B7–0 (predpris-topna strategija) proračuna (4).
The amounts made available for the 10 Sapard countries for the years 2000-2003 were 2 183 million euro (5). 
Zneski, ki so bili desetim državam Saparda dani na voljo za obdobje 2000–2003, so znašali 2 183 milijonov eurov (5).
Annex 1 provides a breakdown by country of this amount. 
V Prilogi 1 je podana razčlenitev tega zneska po državah.
Sapard provides aid from EU and national funds of up to 50 % to agricultural producers (mainly for on-farm investments in agricultural machines) and processing plants (mainly for investments in equipment), the remaining part (50 % or more) being financed by the beneficiary (6). 
Program Sapard zagotavlja kmetijskim proizvajalcem (večinoma za naložbe na kmetijah v kmetijske stroje) in predelo-valnim obratom (večinoma za naložbe v opremo) do 50 % pomoči iz skladov EU in nacionalnih skladov, preostali del (50 % ali več) pa financira upravičenec (6).
In the case of local communities (for rural development infrastructure such as local roads and sewage systems) the Sapard aid is up to 100 %. 
Za lokalne skupnosti (za infrastrukturo za razvoj podeželja, na primer lokalne ceste in kanalizacija) znaša pomoč programa Sapard do 100 %.
In all cases (whether the public aid granted is up to 50 % or 100 %), the EU contributes 75 % of the aid paid, while national co-financing provides the remaining 25 %. 
V vseh primerih (najsi dodeljena javna pomoč znaša do 50 % ali 100 %) prispeva EU 75 % izplačane pomoči, medtem ko nacionalno sofinanciranje zagotavlja preostalih 25 %.
Sapard is unique in the sense that it is the first external aid programme which is implemented in a decentralised manner. 
Program Sapard je edinstven v smislu, da je prvi program zunanje pomoči, ki se izvaja decentralizirano.
This latter aspect means that there is no ex ante approval by the Commission for project selection, tendering and contracting (7). 
Ta vidik pomeni, da Komisija ne izdaja predhodne odobritve za izbiranje projektov, javne razpise in oddajanje naročil (7).
Decentralised management in the Sapard countries has closely followed the systems set up in EU Member States, including the approval by the Commission of a ÔProgramme for Agriculture and (4) GeneralbudgetoftheEuropeanUnion.Asfrom2004,Sapardisman-aged under Chapter 5 of title 5 (Agriculture and rural development) of the budget, and only includes new allocations for Bulgaria and Romania. 
Decentralizirano upravljanje v državah Saparda je natančno upoštevalo vzpostavitev sistemov v državah članicah EU, vključno z odobritvijo „Programa za (4) Splošni proračun Evropske unije. Od leta 2004 se program Sapard upravlja pod poglavjem 5 naslova 5 (Kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja) proračuna, vključuje pa zgolj dodatne dodelitve za Bolgarijo in Romunijo.
(5) Appropriations for commitment. 
(5) Odobrena proračunska sredstva za obveznosti.
(6) The level of public aid is a function of the type of measure or project. 
(6) Raven javne pomoči je funkcija vrste ukrepa ali projekta.
For revenue-generating investments the normal maximum aid level is 50 % of the total eligible cost. 
Za naložbe, ki ustvarjajo prihodek, znaša običajna najvišja raven pomoči 50 % skupnih upravičenih stroškov.
(7) As defined in Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 of 21 June 1999 on coordinating aid to the applicant countries in the framework of the pre-accession strategy (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999). 
(7) Kakor določa člen 12 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
30.11.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/5 Rural DevelopmentŐ for each Sapard country. 
30.11.2004 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 295/5 kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja“ s strani Komisije za vsako državo Saparda.
The Sapard Regulation stipulates that the programmes should be based on plans drawn up by those countries, which should relate to the 15 measures defined in the Regulation. 
Uredba Sapard določa, da morajo programi temeljiti na načrtih, ki so jih izoblikovale te države in ki se morajo nanašati na 15 ukrepov, določenih v Uredbi.
There has been a concentration on those measures which focus on investments in agricultural processing (improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products, and investments in agricultural holdings) and those which develop rural areas (development and improvement of rural infrastructure). 
Pozornost se posveča ukrepom, ki se osredotočajo na naložbe v kmetijsko predelovalno industrijo (izboljševanje predelovanja in trženja kmetijskih proizvodov ter naložbe v kmetijska gospodarstva) in ukrepe za razvoj podeželja (razvoj in izboljševanje podeželske infrastrukture).
The Sapard countries granted these a higher priority than other possible measures such as those for agri-environment, forestry and afforestation to which they allocated only 4 % of all resources. 
Države Saparda so jih obravnavale bolj prednostno kakor druge možne ukrepe, kot so tisti za kmetijsko okolje, gozdarstvo in pogozdovanje, ki so jim dodelile zgolj štiri odstotke vseh sredstev.
Annex 1 provides a breakdown by country of the allocation to the main type of measure and beneficiary. 
V Prilogi 1 je podana razčlenitev dodeljenih sredstev glavnim vrstam ukrepov in upravičencev po državah.
Implementation and payment functions in the Sapard countries are the responsibility of the Sapard Agency. 
Za izvajanje in plačevanje v državah Saparda je zadolžena agencija Sapard.
Potential beneficiaries send applications to local offices of this agency. 
Potencialni upravičenci pošljejo vloge lokalnim uradom te agencije.
A separate body in the Ministry of Finance, called the National Fund, requests and receives payments from the Commission, and makes funds available to the Sapard Agency. 
Ločeni organ ministrstva za finance, imenovan nacionalni sklad, od Komisije zahteva in prejema plačila ter daje sredstva na voljo agenciji Sapard.
How did we audit Sapard? 
Kako smo revidirali Sapard?
Due to the large increase in the pre-accession budget in general, which effectively doubled from 1999 to 2000 and which, for Sapard, was to be managed by newly created structures under newly created rules, the Court decided to perform an audit which aimed at answering the question: ÔHas Sapard been well managed?Ő Three audit objectives were defined, which sought to review: Ń the CommissionŐs management and control systems for the programme, Ń the quality of systems set up in the applicant Sapard countries, and Ń project selection, approval and implementation by national and regional authorities. 
Zaradi na splošno velikega povečanja v predpristopnem proračunu, ki se je med letoma 1999 in 2000 dejansko podvojil in so ga morale za Sapard upravljati nove strukture v skladu z nanovo izoblikovanimi pravili, je Sodišče sklenilo opraviti revizijo, da bi lahko odgovorilo na vprašanje: „Ali se program Sapard dobro upravlja?“ Določeni so bili trije revizijski cilji, s katerimi naj bi preučili: — sisteme Komisije za upravljanje in nadzor programa, — kakovost sistemov, vzpostavljenih v državah prosilkah Saparda, in — izbiranje projektov, odobritev ter izvajanje s strani nacionalnih in regionalnih organov.
These objectives allowed the Court to analyse whether the management and control systems were effective and applied reasonably or whether they were insufficient in their coverage. 
Ti cilji so Sodišču omogočali, da preuči, ali so bili sistemi upravljanja in nadzora učinkoviti ter primerno uporabljeni, oziroma ali je bil njihov obseg nezadosten.
Audits were carried out in the Commission (DG Agriculture) and in four Sapard countries (Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland and Romania). 
Revizije so bile opravljene v Komisiji (GD Kmetijstvo) in štirih državah Saparda (v Bolgariji, Litvi, na Poljskem in v Romuniji).
Documentary checks were made for a sample of 76 projects, of which 42 were visited on the spot between November 2002 and September 2003. 
Preverjanja dokumentacije so bila opravljena na vzorcu 76 projektov, pri čemer se je med novembrom 2002 in septembrom 2003 opravilo 42 obiskov na kraju samem.
The projects in the sample covered the main measures implemented at the time of the audit, which themselves represented around 95 % of all contracts concluded and payments made in these four countries (1). 
Projekti v vzorcu so zajemali glavne ukrepe, ki so se izvajali v času revizije, in so predstavljali približno 95 % vseh oddanih naročil ter izplačanih plačil v teh štirih državah (1).
In addition, key elements of the systems set up in the Sapard countries were reviewed. 
Poleg tega so bili preučeni ključni elementi sistemov, vzpostavljenih v državah Sapard.
The staff of the Supreme Audit Institutions of the countries visited have worked with and accompanied the CourtŐs auditors. 
Osebje vrhovnih revizijskih institucij v obiskanih državah je sodelovalo z revizorji Sodišča in jih spremljalo pri delu.
The audit of Sapard built on the results of previous audits, which had focused on the setting up of the programme and the CommissionŐs analysis and monitoring of the Sapard systems, which have been published in the CourtŐs Annual Reports (2). 
Revizija programa Sapard je slonela na rezultatih predhodnih revizij, ki so se osredotočale na vzpostavitev programa, ter analizi Komisije in spremljanju sistemov programa Sapard, ki so bili objavljeni v letnih poročilih Sodišča (2).
The main conclusions were that considerable time was used in setting up the Sapard instrument, in particular in clarifying and working out the details of the complex legal basis, and that the management and control systems foresaw insufficient checks in risk areas such as staffing, prevention of double funding, sound financial management, bank interest, and compliance with minimum standards for environment, hygiene and animal welfare. 
Glavne ugotovitve so bile, da je bilo za vzpostavitev instrumenta programa Sapard porabljenega precej časa, zlasti za razjasnitev in izpopolnitev podrobnosti zapletene pravne podlage, ter da so sistemi upravljanja in nadzora predvideli nezadostna preverjanja na področjih tveganja, kot so zaposlovanje, preprečevanje dvojnega financiranja, dobro finančno poslovanje, bančne obresti ter izpolnjevanje minimalnih standardov za okolje, higieno in dobro počutje živali.
STAGES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SAPARD Large proportions of available funds remained unused 11. 
STOPNJE IZVAJANJA PROGRAMA SAPARD Velik del razpoložljivih sredstev je ostal neporabljen 11.
The diagram shows the stages in the implementation of the Sapard programme from the first proposal for legislation until 31 December 2003. 
Slika prikazuje stopnje izvajanja programa Sapard od prvega predloga za zakonodajo do 31. decembra 2003.
The amounts indicated in section ÔAŐ show the gap between the total Community financial contribution in the general budget (3) and the total amount for which contracts have been concluded with beneficiaries. 
Zneski v razdelku „A“ prikazujejo razliko med skupnim finančnim prispevkom Skupnosti v splošni proračun (3) in skupnim zneskom, za katerega so bile z upravičenkami sklenjene pogodbe.
The difference thus reflects the amount available in the budget which was not used by the Sapard countries because of the time needed to have their systems approved, and, following this, the delays in those countries arising from difficulties in implementation. 
V razliki se torej odraža razpoložljivi znesek v proračunu, ki ga države Saparda še niso uporabile zaradi časa, potrebnega za odobritev njihovih sistemov in, posledično, zaradi zamud v teh državah, povezanih s težavami pri izvajanju.
The two main implementation problems are presented in paragraphs 81 to 95. 
Dva glavna problema pri izvajanju sta predstavljena v odstavkih 81–95.
(1) The main measures are: investments in agricultural holdings, improving the processing and marketing of agricultural and fishery products, and development and improvement of rural infrastructure. 
(1) Glavni ukrepi so: naložbe v kmetijska gospodarstva, izboljševanje predelovanja in trženja kmetijskih in ribiških proizvodov ter razvoj in izboljševanje podeželske infrastrukture.
This represents some 80 % of commitments made in all applicant countries. 
To predstavlja približno 80 % obveznosti, prevzetih v vseh državah prosilkah.
(2) Court of Auditors Annual Reports concerning the financial year 2000 (OJ C 359, 15.12.2001) (paragraphs 6.41 to 6.53); 2001 (OJ C 295, 28.11.2002) (paragraphs 6.8 to 6.32); and 2002 (OJ C 286, 28.11.03) (paragraphs 8.23 to 8.31). 
(2) Letna poročila Računskega sodišča za proračunsko leto 2000 (UL C 359, 15.12.2001) (odstavki 6.41–6.53); 2001 (UL C 295, 28.11.2002) (odstavki 6.8–6.32); in 2002 (UL C 286, 28.11.2003) (odstavki 8.23–8.31).
(3) Cumulative appropriations for commitment. 
(3) Skupna odobrena proračunska sredstva za obveznosti.
C 295/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.11.2004 DIAGRAM Implementation of Sapard 1998-2003 A = B = C = Source Amounts in the EU budget for which contracts were not signed. Contracts concluded but not yet paid. Amounts paid to beneficiaries. : European Court of Auditors: payments and contracts as at 31 December 2003. 
C 295/6 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 30.11.2004 SLIKA Izvajanje programa Sapard 1998–2003 (v milijonih eurov) Marec 1998 Prvi predlog za Uredbo Sveta Junij 1999 Sprejetje Uredbe Sveta November 2000 Komisija zaključi pravno podlago Maj 2001 Sistemi odobreni v prvi Sapard državi November 2002 Sistemi odobreni v zadnji Sapard državi A = Zneski v proračunu EU, za katere niso bile podpisane pogodbe B = Sklenjene, vendar še ne izplačane pogodbe C = Zneski, plačani upravičencem Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče: plačila in pogodbe kot navedene decembra 2003.
12. with final beneficiaries but which have not yet been paid. 
12. Razdelek „B“ prikazuje znesek pogodb, sklenjenih s končnimi upravičenci, ki pa še vedno niso izplačane.
This reflects the time needed for the implementation of projects, which, for example for construction projects, can normally take more than a year, but also reflects administrative delays (see paragraph 16 et seq). 
V tem se odraža čas, ki je potreben za izvedbo projektov in ki lahko pri gradbenih projektih običajno preseže leto dni, odražajo pa se tudi upravne zamude (glej odstavek 16 in naprej).
Section ÔCŐ shows the actual flow of funds to beneficiaries. because of the time needed for setting up the programme 13. 
Razdelek „C“ prikazuje dejanski pretok sredstev k upravičencem. zaradi časa, ki je bil potreben za uvedbo programa 13.
In June 1999, the Council adopted the CommissionŐs proposal for a Regulation on Sapard. 
Junija 1999 je Svet sprejel predlog Komisije za Uredbo o Sapardu.
This set out a new and complex legal framework, which required further definition. 
S tem se je izoblikoval nov in obsežen pravni okvir, ki je zahteval nadaljnjo opredelitev.
It took the Commission seven months to set out the implementation principles; then six months to draft and adopt the detailed rules; then a further six months to draft, negotiate and adopt the agreements with the Sapard countries. 
Komisija je potrebovala sedem mesecev, da je izoblikovala izvedbena načela; nato šest mesecev, da je izdelala osnutek in sprejela podrobna pravila; zatem pa še nadaljnjih šest mesecev za izdelavo osnutka, pogajanja in sprejetje sporazumov z državami Saparda.
Thus, the legal basis was finalised on 29 November 2000 (1). 
Tako je bila pravna podlaga dovršena 29. novembra 2000 (1).
By the end of March 2001, all countries had signed the agreements. 
Do konca marca 2001 so sporazume podpisale vse države.
(1) Further details are given in the CourtŐs Annual Report concerning the financial year 2000, paragraphs 6.41 to 6.43. 
(1) Nadaljnji podrobni podatki so podani v letnem poročilu Sodišča za proračunsko leto 2000, v odstavkih 6.41–6.43.
The Commission did not use the time available in the period between March 1998, when it proposed the Sapard Regulation (2), and June 1999, when it was adopted by the Council, to make further implementation preparations. 
Komisija ni izkoristila časa, ki ga je imela na voljo v obdobju med marcem 1998, ko je predlagala Uredbo Sapard (2), in junijem leta 1999, ko jo je sprejel Svet, za nadaljnje izvedbene priprave.
This 15-month period could have been used to prepare detailed principles and rules which would have clarified the policy and accelerated implementation. 
To 15-mesečno obdobje bi se lahko porabilo za pripravo podrobnih načel in pravil, ki bi lahko razjasnila politiko in pospešila izvajanje.
After completion of the legal framework in November 2000, the start of Sapard depended on the time needed to set up the systems by the Sapard countries. 
Potem ko je bil pravni okvir novembra 2000 dokončno izoblikovan, je bil začetek izvajanja programa Sapard odvisen od časa, ki so ga države Saparda potrebovale za vzpostavitev sistemov.
Some countries were quick: the Commission approved the systems for some of the measures in Bulgaria in May 2001. 
Nekatere države so bile hitre: Komisija je sisteme za nekatere ukrepe v Bolgariji odobrila maja 2001.
Hungary did not start the implementation of some of the Sapard measures until 27 November 2002. and because of delays in implementation by the Sapard countries 16. 
Druge so potrebovale več časa; Madžarska je nekatere ukrepe programa Sapard začela izvajati šele 27. novembra 2002. in zaradi zamud držav Saparda pri izvajanju programa 16.
Since the start of Sapard in the countries concerned, heavy administrative procedures, stricter than required by the (2) Proposal from the Commission for a Council Regulation (COM(98) 153 final, 19 March 1998). 
Od začetka izvajanja programa Sapard v zadevnih državah so težavni upravni postopki, strožji od tistih, ki jih (2) Predlog Komisije za Uredbo Sveta (COM(98) 153 konč., 19. marca 1998).
30.11.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/7 Sapard rules, have hampered an efficient implementation of the programme. 
30.11.2004 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 295/7 zahtevajo predpisi programa Sapard, ovirali učinkovito izvajanje programa.
Below are some examples of the implementation problems found by the Court (see also paragraph 91 et seq). 
Spodaj je podanih nekaj primerov problemov pri izvajanju, ki jih je odkrilo Sodišče (glej tudi odstavek 91 in naprej).