natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN When considering the length of the appraisal procedure, the commission has proposed for 2014–20 a deadline for Member states’ additional information, and a condition that such additional information should be provided only in exceptional cases. also, learning curve effects have been visible for some time, allowing a somewhat faster process. all targeted changes together, including e-applications, should allow an important speeding up of the length of the assessment and subsequent adoption of financing decisions. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE Komisija je pri obravnavi dolžine postopka odobritve za obdobje 2014–2020 predlagala rok za predložitev dodatnih informacij držav članic in pogoj, da se lahko take dodatne informacije predložijo le izjemoma. Nekaj časa so bili vidni tudi vplivi krivulje učenja, kar je nekoliko pospešilo postopek. Vse načrtovane spremembe, vključno z e-vlogami, bi morale znatno pospešiti postopek ocenjevanja in posledično sprejetje sklepov o financiranju.
67. the major part of the preparation of the financing decision is concurrent with the budgetary procedure, so that only the adoption by empowerment takes place after the decision of the budgetary authority has been signed. the 4 weeks mentioned by the court include both the adoption of the financing decision by empowerment, and the actual commitment and payment of the contribution. 
67. Večji del priprav sklepa o financiranju poteka sočasno s proračunskim postopkom, zato bo po podpisu sklepa proračunskega organa potrebno le še sprejetje s pooblasti-tvijo.
68. the commission refers to its reply under paragraphs 60 to 62. 
68. Komisija se sklicuje na svoj odgovor v odstavkih 60 do 62.
EGf procedures, for the reasons referred to in paragraphs 65 and 67, exceed the level of complexity associated with ordinary financing decisions of the commission. as the court notes (paragraph 66), important parts of the procedure cannot be compressed. the commission has been striving to speed up the entire approval process and is therefore actively working on further ways by which the overall timeline can be shortened, for example through the development of e-applications or stricter deadlines for both Member states and the commission in its proposal for the new regulation. 
Postopki ESPG iz razlogov v odstavkih 65 in 67 presegajo stopnjo kompleksnosti, povezano z običajnimi sklepi Komisije o financiranju. Kot ugotavlja Sodišče (odstavek 66), pomembnih delov postopka ni mogoče skrajšati. Komisija se v predlogu nove uredbe trudi pospešiti celoten postopek odobritve, zato dejavno išče dodatne načine, kako skrajšati celotni časovni okvir, na primer z oblikovanjem e-vlog ali določitvijo strožjih rokov za države članice in Komisijo.
37 concluSionS and recommendationS 72. the commission draws attention to the conclusions of the mid-term evaluation report related to added value. this report concludes that the EGf has delivered ‘significant added value’ and ‘independent experts concluded that hardly any results would have been achieved without EGf support’. 
Komisija opozarja na sklepne ugotovitve poročila o vmesni oceni, povezane z dodano vrednostjo. V tem poročilu je navedeno, da je ESPG ustvaril „bistveno dodano vrednost“ in da so „neodvisni strokovnjaki [...] sklenili, da brez podpore ESPG ne bi bilo mogoče doseči skoraj nobenih rezultatov“.
73. the commission strives, with Member states, to achieve a reasonable balance between a comprehensive coverage and the time necessary to prepare and submit an application. it underlines that the affected workers of the downstream suppliers have never been intentionally excluded. also, even when not included, they might have received other forms of assistance. 
73. Komisija si skupaj z državami članicami prizadeva najti ustrezno ravnovesje med celovito pokritostjo in časom, potrebnim za pripravo in predložitev vloge.
75. the commission agrees that the EGf and Esf are mutually complementary policy measures in supporting the transition of redundant workers back into employment and notes that the court lists seven out of 27 Member states that preferred the Esf over the EGf (paragraphs 23 and 24). the commission also refers to its reply to recommendation no 3 of the court. 
75. Komisija se strinja, da sta sklada ESPG in ESS dopolnjujoča se ukrepa politike, ki podpirata prehod presežnih delavcev nazaj v delovno razmerje, in poudarja, da v skladu s seznamom Sodišča 7 od 27 držav članic daje prednost ESS pred ESPG (odstavka 23 in 24).
76. the commission notes that, in general, it has accurate and detailed reintegration data at its disposal for all EGf cases. 
76. Komisija ugotavlja, da ima na splošno na voljo točne in podrobne podatke o ponovnem vključevanju za vse zadeve ESPG.
With regards to the level of detail of such data, in all of the EGf cases audited, the Member states complied with their reporting obligations in accordance with article 15 of the EGf regulation. 
V zvezi s stopnjo podrobnosti takih podatkov so države članice v vseh revidiranih zadevah ESPG upoštevale obveznosti poročanja v skladu s členom 15 Uredbe št.
78. the commission refers to its replies to paragraphs 48 to 52. the commission observes that support provided by the EGf should be considered as financing a ‘package’ of interrelated measures, which as a whole contribute to the success of the funded operations. indeed the EGf provides support to workers through various forms of assistance, including allowances to ensure that workers have sufficient income for the duration of the activation measures, and are hence in a position to benefit from the various supported actions such as training. 
Komisija se sklicuje na svoje odgovore na odstavke 48 do 52. Ugotavlja, da bi se morala podpora, ki jo zagotavlja ESPG, obravnavati kot financiranje „svežnja“ medsebojno povezanih ukrepov, ki kot celota prispevajo k uspehu financiranih projektov. ESPG dejansko podpira delavce z različnimi oblikami pomoči, vključno z nadomestili za zagotavljanje dovolj velikega dohodka delavcev med trajanjem aktivacijskih ukrepov, da lahko izkoristijo različne podporne dejavnosti, kot je usposabljanje.
Moreover, the commission underlines that reintegration objectives were not included in the EGf regulation. in its proposal for the new EGf regulation for 2014–20, the commission proposed as an objective to be obtained that 50 % of workers are reintegrated into employment 1 year after the date of application. 
1927/2006 o ESPG. Komisija je v predlogu nove uredbe o ESPG za obdobje 2014–2020 predlagala cilj, ki bi ga bilo treba doseči, in sicer, da bi bilo eno leto po začetku izvajanja v delovno razmerje ponovno vključenih 50 % delavcev.
38 the EGf regulation does not set conditions or specify a preference for the source of such allowances, nor do evaluations and assessments show any differentiation in terms of effectiveness or performance related to the source or type of allowances for workers while following training courses (or other actions) with a view to finding new employment. 
38 Uredba o ESPG ne določa pogojev ali preferenčnega vira takih nadomestil, vrednotenja in ocene pa ne kažejo razlik v učinkovitosti ali delovanju glede na vir ali vrsto nadomestil za delavce, ki obiskujejo programe usposabljanja (ali druge dejavnosti) zaradi iskanja nove zaposlitve.
80. the commission agrees that the current approval process is long and therefore strives to minimise delays where possible whilst ensuring that due process takes place. at present the commission is actively working to make progress in this respect. 
80. Komisija se strinja, da je sedanji postopek odobritve dolgotrajen, zato si, kjer je mogoče, prizadeva skrajšati zamude in hkrati zagotoviti izvedbo ustreznega postopka.
However, it is important to note that procedures do not determine the speed at which support for workers arrives, nor does it hamper solidarity. in fact, the commission stimulates Member states to take action at the earliest possible stage. 
Zdaj dejavno išče rešitve na tem področju. Vseeno je treba poudariti, da postopki ne vplivajo na to, kako hitro bodo delavci prejeli podporo niti ne ovirajo solidarnosti.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN it is important to note that each EGf case was treated on its own merits, and Member states were given the opportunity to supplement their applications with further information, until the commission had all the data at its disposal that would enable it to argue the eligibility of the case in front of the council and the European parliament. as a result of the full process a high success rate of EGf applications could be obtained. 
Komisija pravzaprav spodbuja države članice, naj čim hitreje ukrepajo. ODGOVORI KOMISIJE Treba je poudariti, da je bila vsaka zadeva ESPG obravnavana posebej in da so države članice lahko dopolnile svoje vloge z dodatnimi informacijami, dokler ni imela Komisija na voljo vseh podatkov, na podlagi katerih je lahko pred Svetom in Evropskim parlamentom zagovarjala upravičenost zadev.
European Court of auditors Special report no 7/2013 has the european Globalisation adjustment Fund delivered eu added value in reintegrating redundant workers? luxembourg: publications office of the European union 2013 — 38 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm ISbN 978-92-9241-314-9 doi:10.2865/92721 
Evropsko računsko sodišče Posebno poročilo št. 7/2013 Ali je Evropski sklad za prilagoditev globalizaciji pri ponovnem vključevanju presežnih delavcev ustvaril dodano vrednost EU? Luxembourg: Urad za publikacije Evropske unije 2013 – 38 str. – 21 × 29,7 cm ISBN 978-92-9241-329-3 doi:10.2865/96011
free publications: how to obtaIn Eu publIcatIons • one copy: via Eu bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-Eu countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the Eu) (*). (*) the information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). priced publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). priced subscriptions: • via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 
KAKO DO PUBLIKACIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE Brezplačne publikacije: • en izvod: na spletni strani EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • več kot en izvod ter plakati in zemljevidi: pri predstavništvih Evropske unije (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_sl.htm), pri delegacijah v državah, ki niso članice EU (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_sl.htm), pri službi Europe Direct (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_sl.htm) ali s klicem na telefonsko številko 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (brezplačna številka za celotno EU) (*). (*) Informacije so brezplačne, kakor tudi večina klicev (nekateri operaterji, telefonske govorilnice ali hoteli lahko klic zaračunajo). Publikacije, ki so naprodaj: • na spletni strani EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). Plačljive naročnine: • pri prodajnih zastopnikih Urada za publikacije Evropske unije (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_sl.htm).
EuropEaN Court of audItorS Qj-ab-13-007-EN-C 
EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE QJ-AB-13-007-SL-C
Special report No 8 2013 Support for thE ImprovEmENt of thE ECoNomIC valuE of forEStS from thE EuropEaN agrICultural fuNd for rural dEvElopmENt (pursuant to article 287(4), second subparagraph, tfEu) EuropEaN Court of audItorS 
Posebno poročilo št. 8 2013 PodPora EvroPskEga kmEtijskEga sklada za razvoj PodEžElja za PovEčanjE gosPodarskE vrEdnosti gozdov (v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 287(4) PdEU) EvroPsko račUnsko sodiŠčE
EuropEan court of auditors 12, rue alcide de Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LuXEMBourG tel. +352 4398-1 fax +352 4398-46410 E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu internet: http://eca.europa.eu special report no 8 2013 more information on the European union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 
EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUKSEMBURG Tel. +352 4398-1 Faks +352 4398-46410 E-naslov: eca-info@eca.europa.eu Internet: http://eca.europa.eu Posebno poročilo št.
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. luxembourg: publications office of the European union, 2013 ISBN 978-92-9241-248-7 doi:10.2865/83666 © European union, 2013 reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 
8 2013 veliko dodatnih informacij o Evropski uniji je na voljo na internetu. dostop je mogoč na strežniku Europa (http://europa.eu). kataloški podatki so navedeni na koncu te publikacije. luxembourg: Urad za publikacije Evropske unije, 2013 isBn 978-92-9241-263-0 doi:10.2865/87259 © Evropska unija, 2013 reprodukcija je dovoljena z navedbo vira.
5 gloSSary CAp: common agricultural policy CmEF: common monitoring and evaluation framework EAFRd: European agricultural fund for rural development. the Eafrd is the main financial instrument of the rd policy. the Eafrd is, along with the EaGf (European agricultural Guarantee fund), one of the two financial instruments of the cap. 
Namenjena je pripravi, pregledovanju in posodabljanju strategije in načrtovanja ob upoštevanju potreb udeleženih strani in razpoložljivih virov. cmef: okvir skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja. eksrP: Evropski kmetijski sklad za razvoj podeželja. EKSRP je glavni finančni instrument politike razvoja podeželja in je skupaj z EKJS (Evropski kmetijski jamstveni sklad) eden od dveh finančnih instrumentov SKP. eU: Evropska unija.
EU: European union Forestry holding: one or more parcels of forest and other wooded land which constitutes a single unit from the point of view of management or utilisation. 
Gozdna posest: ena ali več gozdnih parcel in drugih gozdnih zemljišč, ki sestavljajo eno samo enoto z vidika gospodarjenja ali izkoriščanja. okrogli industrijski les: ves les, spravljen iz gozda, ki se ne uporablja za energetske namene.
Ex ante evaluation verifies whether the needs put forward to justify an intervention are genuine. 
S predhodnim vrednotenjem se preveri, ali so potrebe, predstavljene v utemeljitev javnega posega, pristne.
Operation: investment project selected according to criteria and implemented by the beneficiary Rdp: rural development programme. a document prepared by Member state or region, and approved by the commission, to plan the implementation of the rd policy. 
PrP: program razvoja podeželja. Dokument, ki ga pripravi država članica ali regija in odobri Komisija ter je namenjen načrtovanju izvajanja politike RP. skP: skupna kmetijska politika. soG: stalni odbor za gozdarstvo. tematska os: povezana skupina ukrepov s posebnimi usmeritvami, ki izhajajo neposredno iz njihove uporabe in prispevajo k uresničevanju enega ali več ciljev podpore za razvoj podeželja.
ExECutIvE Summary vi. the court concludes that the commission and the Member states did not manage the audited aspects of the support for the improvement of the economic value of forests efficiently and effectively. vii. the court’s audit revealed weaknesses in the design of the measure which significantly hinders its successful implementation: at the commission level, the situation in the forestry sector in the Eu was not specifically analysed so as to justify the proposal of specific financial support for improving the economic value of forests of private owners or municipalities. furthermore, key features of the measure were not defined in the legal provisions, particularly the meaning of ‘economic value of forests’ and what is a ‘forestry holding’. 
PovzEtEk vi. Sodišče je prišlo do zaključka, da Komisija in države članice niso učinkovito in uspešno upravljale revidiranih vidikov podpore za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov. vii. Sodišče je z revizijo odkrilo slabosti v zasnovi ukrepa, ki močno ovirajo njegovo uspešno izvajanje: na ravni Komisije razmere v gozdarskem sektorju EU niso bile izrecno analizirane, da bi se utemeljil predlog za posebno finančno podporo za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov v zasebni lasti ali v lasti občin.
Moreover, Member states set very different sizes of forest holdings above which a forest management plan was required. viii. at the Member states’ level the needs were not adequately described in the rdps and several Member states discontinued the measure or reallocated most of the allocated amounts in favour of other measures. 
Poleg tega so države članice zelo različno določile, nad katero velikostjo gozdne posesti je treba zanjo pripraviti načrt za gospodarjenje. viii.
iX. the court also found that, in certain respects, the implementation process was not appropriate: depending on the Member state approach, many of the projects subsequently funded are not in line with the measure’s provisions. 
iX. Sodišče je prav tako ugotovilo, da izvajanje v določenih vidikih ni bilo ustrezno: odvisno od pristopa države članice številni projekti, ki so bili pozneje financirani, niso skladni z določbami ukrepa.
Moreover, Member states supported under measure 122 operations which do not correspond to the objectives of the measure and which would be more appropriately financed by other measures with different eligibility requirements and aid financing rates, usually lower. as not all the investments per se increase the economic value of forests, the inherent link between the aid granted and a possible improvement of the economic value of a forest varies depending on the typology of the investment. 
Poleg tega so države članice z ukrepom 122 podpirale operacije, ki ne ustrezajo ciljem ukrepa in bi jih bilo primerneje financirati z drugimi ukrepi, ki imajo drugačne zahteve za upravičenost in drugačne, običajno nižje, stopnje financiranja. Ker vse naložbe same po sebi ne povečujejo gospodarske vrednosti gozdov, se stopnja povezanosti dodeljene pomoči in možnega povečanja gospodarske vrednosti gozda razlikuje glede na vrsto naložbe.
X. the court considers that the assessment of the effectiveness of the support was not satisfactory: Member states did not determine or require beneficiaries to determine the value of the forest areas prior to and after the investments. 
X. Sodišče meni, da se uspešnost podpore ni ustrezno ocenjevala: države članice pred naložbami in po njih niso ugotovile vrednosti gozdnih zemljišč niti niso tega zahtevale od upravičencev.
Xi. in terms of monitoring, the cMEf is inadequate to appraise the impact of the financial support under measure 122 because the performance indicators and evaluation questions included in the cMEf do not allow a determination of whether the funded investments resulted in an improvement of the economic value of the forests where they were carried out. 
Xi. Kar zadeva spremljanje, CMEF ni ustrezen za ocenjevanje učinka finančne podpore iz ukrepa 122, ker s kazalniki smotrnosti in vprašanji pri vrednotenju, ki se uporabljajo pri CMEF, ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali so financirane naložbe povečale gospodarsko vrednost gozdov, v katerih so bile izvedene.
Xii. the court found that only a few of the audited projects improved significantly the economic value of the forests, either by improving the value of the land (building of forest tracks and roads) or the value of the stands (silvicultural operations like pruning or thinning). 
Xii. Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je le nekaj revidiranih projektov zelo povečalo gospodarsko vrednost gozdov, bodisi s povečanjem vrednosti zemljišča (gradnja gozdnih vlak in cest) ali vrednosti sestojev (gozdnogojitvene dejavnosti, kot je obrezovanje ali redčenje).
ExECutIvE Summary Xiii. 
PovzEtEk Xiii.
With regard to the above conclusions and to the fact that the audited support is proposed to be maintained for the next programming period 2014–20, the court recommends that: — the commission should: (i) define and assess the Eu needs for improving the economic value of the forests; (ii) clearly define the key features that would ensure that the Eu support is targeted to address those needs, and thus create Eu added value. — the Member states should: (i) adequately describe in their rdps the specific economic needs and opportunities of the different types of forest areas and beneficiaries; (ii) enhance forest management by providing for the elaboration of forest management plans for the bulk of forest holdings and the promotion of certification of forest areas. — the Member states should: (i) set adequate requirements to ensure that forestry support within the rural development policy is consistent, in line with state aid provisions and maximises its effectiveness; (ii) put in place adequate procedures to ensure that support is effective so as to actually increase the economic value of the forest areas where the investments take place. — the commission should improve its monitoring of the measure to ensure that the Member states implement it in line with the specific objectives set. in concrete terms, the Member states should require beneficiaries to provide details of the value of their forest areas both prior to and after the aided investments and managing bodies should be required to validate these values. 
Sodišče ob upoštevanju navedenih zaključkov in predloga, da se revidirana podpora v naslednjem programskem obdobju 2014–2020 ohrani, priporoča, naj: — Komisija: (i) opredeli in oceni potrebe EU glede povečanja gospodarske vrednosti gozdov; (ii) jasno opredeli ključne značilnosti, ki bi zagotovile, da je podpora EU ciljno usmerjena v reševanje teh potreb in tako ustvarja dodano vrednost EU; — države članice: (i) v svojih PRP ustrezno opišejo specifične gospodarske potrebe in priložnosti za različne vrste gozdnih površin in upravičencev; (ii) izboljšajo gospodarjenje z gozdovi z zagotavljanjem priprave načrtov za gospodarjenje z gozdovi za večino gozdnih posesti in spodbujanjem certificiranja gozdnih površin; — države članice: (i) določijo ustrezne zahteve, da zagotovijo doslednost podpore gozdarstvu v okviru politike razvoja podeželja, njeno skladnost z določbami o državni pomoči ter njeno čim večjo učinkovitost; (ii) uvedejo ustrezne postopke za zagotovitev, da je podpora dejansko uspešna pri povečevanju gospodarske vrednosti gozdnih površin, na katerih so bile izvedene naložbe; — Komisija izboljša svoje spremljanje ukrepa, da zagotovi, da ga države članice izvajajo v skladu s specifičnimi zastavljenimi cilji. Konkretno naj države članice od upravičencev zahtevajo, naj pred izvedbo podprtih naložb in po njej predložijo podrobne podatke o vrednosti njihovih gozdnih površin, od organov upravljanja pa, naj te vrednosti potrdijo. 7 Posebno poročilo št.
7 Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 8 INtroduCtIoN FORESTRY In THE EU 1. in the Eu the total area of forests and other wooded land accounts for 177,8 million hectares which is about 40 % of the total Eu land area and similar to the land area used for agricultural purposes1 (183,9 million hectares). 
8 Uvod Gozdarstvo v eU 1. Skupna površina gozdov in drugih gozdnih zemljišč v EU znaša 177,8 milijona hektarjev, kar je približno 40 % skupne površine zemljišč EU in podobno površini zemljišč, ki se uporabljajo za kmetijstvo (183,9 milijona hektarjev).1 Gozdna zemljišča v Nemčiji, Španiji, Franciji, na Finskem in Švedskem so skupno predstavljala več kot tri petine takih zemljišč v EU.
Germany, spain, france, finland and sweden collectively accounted for more than three fifths of the wooded land in the Eu. graph 1 shows the distribution of the wooded land in the Eu and its importance compared to the agricultural land in each Member state. 
V diagramu 1 sta prikazani porazdelitev gozdnih zemljišč v EU in njihova pomembnost glede na kmetijska zemljišča po posameznih državah članicah.