natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3.38. Example 3.6 — Deficiencies in the work carried out by certification bodies In Bulgaria, the re-performance of the on-the-spot checks was outsourced by the certification body to a service provider. 
3.38 Primer 3.6 – Pomanjkljivosti dela, ki so ga opravili certifikacijski organi V Bolgariji je certifikacijski organ oddal ponovitev pregledov na kraju samem v zunanje izvajanje ponudniku storitev.
In several cases re-performed by the Court the service provider had incorrectly assessed the eligibility of land. 
V več primerih, ko je pregled ponovno izvedlo Sodišče, se je pokazalo, da je ponudnik storitev napačno ocenil upravičenost zemljišča.
Furthermore, the certification body did not observe that the paying agency did not offset area surpluses found on one parcel against deficits found on another parcel, as required by EU legislation. 
Poleg tega certifikacijski organ ni opazil, da plačilna agencija ni izravnala presežnega zemljišča, ugotovljenega na eni parceli, z manjkajočimi površinami, ugotovljenimi na drugi parceli, kot določa zakonodaja EU.
Another shortcoming undetected by the certification body was that where the same area was claimed by two farmers (multiple-claims) the paying agency, contrary to EU legislation, replaced the area claimed by one of the farmers concerned by an equivalent unclaimed area in another part of the reference parcel. 
Certifikacijski organ prav tako ni ugotovil pomanjkljivosti, ko je plačilna agencija, kadar sta dva kmeta vložila zahtevek za isto površino (večkratni zahtevki), v nasprotju z zakonodajo EU nadomestila površino, ki jo je prijavil eden od zadevnih kmetov, z enakovredno površino, za katero ni bil vložen zahtevek, na drugem delu referenčne parcele.
In Romania, the paying agency withheld all payments selected by the certification body and presented to that body payment simulations based on lists of parcels which excluded all ineligible parcels. However, after the completion of the audit and the validation of the payment simulations by the certification body, the paying agency added new parcels to the list by way of incorrect application of the obvious error concept (34) and paid higher amounts than those validated by the certification body. 
V Romuniji je plačilna agencija zadržala vsa plačila, ki jih je izbral certifikacijski organ, in organu predložila simulacije plačil na podlagi seznama parcel brez neupravičenih parcel, vendar je, ko je bila revizija končana in je certifikacijski organ potrdil simulacije plačil, seznamu dodala nove parcele, tako da je nepravilno uporabila pojem očitne napake (34) in izplačala višje zneske od tistih, ki jih je potrdil certifikacijski organ.
As a result, the certification body issued an unqualified opinion on the legality and regularity of payments despite the weaknesses highlighted by the Court. 
Posledično je certifikacijski organ kljub pomanjkljivostim, na katere je opozorilo Sodišče, izdal mnenje brez pridržka o zakonitosti in pravilnosti plačil.
Example 3.6 — Deficiencies in the work carried out by certification bodies See reply to point 3.39. 
Primer 3.6 – Pomanjkljivosti dela, ki so ga opravili certifikacijski organi Glej odgovor na odstavek 3.39.
3.39. Overall, the Court considers that the quality of the work performed by the certification bodies audited under reinforcement of assurance is insufficient. 
3.39 Sodišče meni, da kakovost dela, ki so ga opravili revi­ dirani certifikacijski organi v okviru okrepitve zagotovila, na splošno ni zadostna.
Consequently, they will not be used for the purposes indicated in point 3.35. 
Ti se zato ne bodo uporabili v namene, opisane v odstavku 3.35.
In the light of the observations referred to in paragraph 3.19 and example 3.6 the Court considers that this was premature. 3.41. 
Glede na opažanja v odstavku 3.19 in primeru 3.6 Sodišče meni, da je bilo to preuranjeno.
Furthermore,DGAGRIconsidersthattheanomalies found by paying agencies during randomly selected on-the-spot inspections reflect the residual error rates. 
3.41 Poleg tega GD AGRI meni, da odstopanja, ki so jih med naključnimi inšpekcijskimi pregledi na kraju samem ugotovile plačilne agencije, odražajo stopnje preostale napake.
The Court reiterates its criticism of this approach already made in its 2010 Annual Report because: — it is based on inspections, the quality of which the Commission’s own audits (35) and the Court’s audits (see paragraph 3.23) have shown to be insufficient, in the case of a number of paying agencies, — it relies on inspection statistics which, according to certifi­ cation body reports, are affected by compilation errors (see paragraph 3.30), and — it is incomplete because it disregards the residual errors in the administrative management of claims which the Court’s (see paragraphs 3.19, 3.21 and 3.22) and the Commis­ sion’s own audits have shown to be deficient (36). 
Sodišče ponavlja svojo kritiko tega pristopa, ki jo je izrazilo že v svojem letnem poročilu za leto 2010, ker: — temelji na inšpekcijskih pregledih, za katere so revizije Komisije same (35) in Sodišča (glej odstavek 3.23) pokazale, da so v veliko plačilnih agencijah premalo kakovostni, — se zanaša na statistične podatke inšpekcijskih pregledov, na katere po trditvah v poročilih certifikacijskih organov vpli­ vajo napake pri zbiranju (glej odstavek 3.30), ter — je nepopoln, ker se pri njem ne upoštevajo preostale napake pri administrativnem upravljanju zahtevkov, za katerega so revizije Sodišča (glej odstavke 3.19, 3.21 in 3.22) in Komisije same pokazale, da je pomanjkljivo (36).
T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S 3.40. It should be recalled that the reservation for Romania was issued purely on a reputational basis due to serious deficiencies in the IACS which is the single most important control system for the CAP and did not entail a financial risk above the 2% materiality threshold at EU level. 
O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E 3.40 Poudariti je treba, da je bil pridržek za Romunijo izdan zgolj na osnovi slovesa zaradi resnih pomanjkljivosti IAKS kot najpo­ membnejšega kontrolnega sistema za SKP in ni predstavljal finan­ čnega tveganja nad 2-odstotnim pragom pomembnosti na ravni EU.
In February 2012 Commission audits have determined that the Romanian action plan was completed, properly implemented and the system was operational at sufficient quality for claim year 2011. 
Revizije Komisije so februarja 2012 pokazale, da je romunski akcijski načrt dokončan, se ustrezno izvaja in da je bilo delovanje sistema za leto vložitve zahtevkov 2011 dovolj kakovostno.
Therefore the Commission considers that it was justified to lift the reservation independently of the question whether the error rate was above materiality in Romania. 
Komisija zato meni, da je bil umik pridržka upravičen ne glede na to, ali je stopnja napake v Romuniji presegla prag pomembnosti.
An audit of the implementation of the revised IACS system will be carried out as part of the normal audit programme in 2012. 
Revizija izvajanja spremenjenega sistema IAKS bo opravljena v okviru običajnega revi­ zijskega programa za leto 2012.
(36) For example, clearance of accounts reports AA/2011/01 (Bulgaria), paragraph 3.3, AA/2010/15 (Portugal), paragraph 3.3, AA/2011/12 (Italy), paragraph 3.2, AA/2011/06 (Spain), paragraph 3.2 and AA/2011/13 (Lithuania), paragraph 3.3. 
(36) Na primer poročila o potrjevanju obračunov AA/2011/01 (Bolga­ rija), odstavek 3.3, AA/2010/15 (Portugalska), odstavek 3.3, AA/2011/12 (Italija), odstavek 3.2, AA/2011/06 (Španija), odstavek 3.2, in AA/2011/13 (Litva), odstavek 3.3.
Based on its audit work, the Court concludes that the payments for the year ended 31 December 2011 of market and direct support for agriculture were affected by material error. 
O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E 3.43 Sodišče je na podlagi svojega revizijskega dela prišlo do zaključka, da so bili pregledani nadzorni in kontrolni sistemi za tržno in neposredno podporo za kmetijstvo delno uspešni.
The low error rates indicated in the control statistics which the Commission has received from Member States and which to a very large extent have been verified and validated by the certification bodies, also confirm that EAGF expenditure in financial year 2011 has generally been well managed. 
3.42 Nizke stopnje napak, razvidne iz kontrolnih statističnih podatkov, ki so jih Komisiji predložile države članice ter ki so jih v zelo veliki meri preverili in potrdili certifikacijski organi, prav tako potrjujejo, da so se odhodki EKJS v proračunskem letu 2011 na splošno dobro upravljali.
See also reply to paragraph 3.12. 
Glej tudi odgovor na odstavek 3.12.
3.43. The Commission considers that the IACS is generally an effective control system for limiting the risk of error or irregular expenditure and that, based on the control statistics from Member States and its own audit findings, the level of undue direct payments covered by the IACS in 2011 was below the 2 % materiality threshold. 
3.43 Komisija meni, da je IAKS na splošno uspešen kontrolni sistem za omejevanje tveganja napak ali nepravilnih odhodkov ter da na osnovi kontrolnih statističnih podatkov iz držav članic in ugoto­ vitev lastnih revizij stopnja neupravičenih neposrednih plačil, ki jih je v letu 2011 zajel IAKS, ni presegala 2-odstotnega praga pomemb­ nosti.
See, also, reply to paragraph 3.15. 
Glej tudi odgovor na odstavek 3.15.
Moreover, the remaining risk for the EU budget is adequately covered by the conformity clearance procedure. 
Poleg tega je tveganje za proračun EU ustrezno krito s postopkom potrditve skladnosti.
Moreover, in 2010 the Commission introduced on a voluntary basis a new control framework called ‘Reinforcement of assurance on the legality and regularity of the transactions at the level of the final beneficiaries through the work of the certification bodies’. 
Poleg tega je Komi­ sija leta 2010 uvedla nov prostovoljni okvir kontrole, imenovan „okrepitev zagotovila o zakonitosti in pravilnosti transakcij na ravni končnih upravičencev z delom certifikacijskih organov“.
Finally, several Member States have developed action plans and the Commission will monitor their completion. 3.45. See joint reply to paragraphs 1.12 and 1.13. 
Kot zadnje je več držav članic oblikovalo akcijske načrte, Komisija pa bo spremljala njihovo izvrševanje. 3.45 Glej skupni odgovor na odstavka 1.12 in 1.13.
The Commission is aware of this issue and is has made proposals aimed at clarifying the eligibility criteria in the context of the ongoing CAP reform towards 2020. 
Komisija se težave zaveda in je podala predloge, s katerimi želi pojasniti merila upravičenosti, v okviru reforme skupne kmetijske politike proti letu 2020.
For the current period, where the Commission finds such weaknesses, recommendations for rectification are made to the Member State and financial corrections are imposed through conformity clearance procedures in order to protect the EU’s financial interests. 
Za zdajšnje obdobje velja, da se, če Komisija odkrije take slabosti, državi članici predložijo priporočila za popravek, na podlagi postopkov potrditve skladnosti pa se naložijo finančni popravki za zaščito finan­ čnih interesov EU.
The Commission agrees with the Court and systematically recommends Member States to improve the control systems and ensure a more vigorous implementation thereof. 
Komisija se strinja s Sodiščem ter državam članicam sistematično priporoča, naj izboljšajo svoje kontrolne sisteme in zagotovijo, da se ti učinkoviteje izvajajo.
Moreover, the Commission services have identified similar deficiencies in the quality of the on-the-spot checks, and the weaknesses found are followed up through conformity clearance procedures which ensure that the risk to the EU budget is adequately covered. 
Tudi službe Komisije so odkrile podobne pomanjkljivosti v kakovosti pregledov na kraju samem, odkrite slabosti pa se nadalje obravnavajo s postopki potrditve skladnosti, ki zagotavljajo, da je tveganje za proračun EU ustrezno krito.
EN C 344/90 Official Journal of the European Union 12.11.2012 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S — Recommendation 4: the design and quality of the work performed by the certification bodies provides a reliable assessment of the legality and regularity of operations in the paying agencies (see paragraphs 3.29 ff). 
SL C 344/90 Uradni list Evropske unije 12.11.2012 U G OT OV I T V E S O D I Š Č A — priporočilo 4: da zasnova in kakovost dela, ki ga opravijo certifikacijski organi, dajeta zanesljivo oceno zakonitosti in pravilnosti dejavnosti v plačilnih agencijah (glej odstavek 3.29 in naprej).
Consequently, no changes in the Commission’s guidelines to certification bodies are foreseen for financial year 2012. 
Zato tudi ni predvidenih sprememb v navo­ dilih Komisije certifikacijskim organom za proračunsko leto 2012.
However, the certification bodies are not presently required to give an opinion on the legality and regularity of operations. 
Certifikacijskim organom zdaj ni treba podati mnenja o zakonitosti in pravilnosti poslovanja.
Such work is possible on a voluntary basis only at the moment. 
Takšno delo je za zdaj mogoče zgolj na prostovoljni osnovi.
The Commission’s proposals for both the financial regulation and the horizontal regu­ lation on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP require the certification bodies(2), from the start of the new programming period, to deliver an opinion on legality and regularity of transactions. _____________ (2) Article 9 of the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and moni­ toring of the common agricultural policy — COM(2011) 628 final/2. 
Predloga Komisije za finančno uredbo ter hori­ zontalno uredbo o financiranju, upravljanju in spremljanju SKP (2) pa certifikacijskim organom od začetka novega programskega obdobja nalagata, naj podajo mnenje o zakonitosti in pravilnosti transakcij. _____________ (2) Člen 9 – Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o financiranju, upra­ vljanju in spremljanju skupne kmetijske politike (COM(2011) 628 final/2).
EN 12.11.2012 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion C344/91 ANNEX 3.1 RESULTS OF TRANSACTION TESTING FOR AGRICULTURE: MARKET AND DIRECT SUPPORT 2011 2010 2009 2008 SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF THE SAMPLE Total transactions (of which): Advances Interim/Final payments RESULTS OF TESTING (1) Proportion (number) of transactions tested found to be: Free of error Affected by one or more errors Analysis of transactions affected by error Analysis by type of error Non-Quantifiable errors: Quantifiable errors: Eligibility Occurrence Accuracy ESTIMATED IMPACT OF QUANTIFIABLE ERRORS Most likely error rate Upper Error Limit (UEL) Lower Error Limit (LEL) (1) Numbers quoted in brackets represent the actual number of transactions. 
SL 12.11.2012 UradnilistEvropskeunije C344/91 PRILOGA 3.1 REZULTATI PREIZKUŠANJA TRANSAKCIJ ZA KMETIJSTVO: TRŽNA IN NEPOSREDNA PODPORA VELIKOST IN STRUKTURA VZORCA Transakcije skupaj (od tega): predplačila vmesna/končna plačila REZULTATI PREIZKUŠANJA (1) Delež (število) preizkušenih transakcij, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno: 2011 2010 2009 2008 180 0 146 148 151 0 0 0 180 146 148 151 61 % (110) 39 % (70) 73 % 27 % 76 % 72 % 24 % 28 % da v njih ni napak da je nanje vplivala vsaj ena napaka Analiza transakcij, na katere so vplivale napake Analiza po vrsti napake količinsko neopredeljive napake: količinsko opredeljive napake: upravičenost nastanek točnost OCENJENI UČINEK KOLIČINSKO OPREDELJIVIH NAPAK Najverjetnejša stopnja napake zgornja meja napake spodnja meja napake (1) Številke v oklepajih pomenijo dejansko število transakcij.
EN C 344/92 Official Journal of the European Union 12.11.2012 ANNEX 3.2 RESULTS OF EXAMINATION OF SYSTEMS FOR AGRICULTURE: MARKET AND DIRECT SUPPORT Assessment of selected supervisory and control systems — EAGF Member State (Paying agency) Scheme IACS related expenditure (national ceiling, Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009) (1 000 euro) Administrative and control procedures to ensure correct payment including quality of databases On-the-spot inspection method­ ology, selection, execution, quality control and reporting of individual results Procedures for the recovery of undue payments Overall assessment Austria SPS 745 235 Partially effective 1, 9 Effective Effective Partially effective Denmark SPS 1 030 478 Partially effective 1, 4, 7, 8 Partially effective b Partially effective A Partially effective Finland SPS 565 520 Partially effective 3, 5, 7, 8 Partially effective b, c Effective Partially effective Hungary SAPS 1 073 824 Partially effective 2, 6, 9 Partially effective a, b Partially effective B Partially effective Italy (Lombardia) SPS 4 227 177 Partially effective 2, 5, 8 Effective Effective Partially effective Spain (Galicia) SPS 5 108 650 Partially effective 1, 2, 3, 4 Partially effective b, c Effective Partially effective 1 Weaknesses regarding the LPIS. 
SL C 344/92 Uradni list Evropske unije 12.11.2012 PRILOGA 3.2 REZULTATI PREGLEDA SISTEMOV ZA KMETIJSTVO: TRŽNA IN NEPOSREDNA PODPORA Ocena izbranih nadzornih in kontrolnih sistemov – EKJS Država članica (plačilna agencija) Shema Odhodki, povezani z IAKS (nacionalna zgornja meja, Priloga VIII Uredbe (ES) št. 73/2009) (v 1 000 EUR) Administrativni in kontrolni postopki za zagotovitev pravil­ nega plačila, vključno s kakovostjo poda­ tkovnih zbirk Metodologija inšpek­ cijskih pregledov na kraju samem, izbor, izvedba, nadzor kakovosti in sporo­ čanje posameznih rezultatov Postopki za izterjavo neupravičenih plačil Skupna ocena Avstrija SEP 745 235 delno uspešno 1, 9 uspešno uspešno delno uspešno Danska SEP 1 030 478 delno uspešno 1, 4, 7, 8 delno uspešno b delno uspešno A delno uspešno Finska SEP 565 520 delno uspešno 3, 5, 7, 8 delno uspešno b, c uspešno delno uspešno Madžarska SEPP 1 073 824 delno uspešno 2, 6, 9 delno uspešno a, b delno uspešno B delno uspešno Italija (Lombardija) SEP 4 227 177 delno uspešno 2, 5, 8 uspešno uspešno delno uspešno Španija (Galicija) SEP 5 108 650 delno uspešno 1, 2, 3, 4 delno uspešno b, c uspešno delno uspešno 1 SlabostivLPIS.
2 Failure to update LPIS after on-the-spot checks. 
2 LPIS se po pregledih na kraju samem ne posodobi.
5 SPS claims do not contain information allowing the location of the agricultural parcels to be determined. 
5 ZahtevkiSEPnevsebujejoinformacij,kibiomogočaleugotovitevlokacijekmetijskihzemljišč.
6 Only limited retroactive checks of potential over-declaration in previous years. 7 Weaknessesintheclaimregistrationprocedure. 8 Obviouserrorcorrectionsdonotmeettheobviouserrorconcept. 
6 V prejšnjih letih so bili izvedeni le omejeni retroaktivni pregledi morebitne prijave prevelikih zemljišč.
A Inaccuracies in the debtors accounts. 
A Netočnosti v računih dolžnikov.
B Weaknessesconcerningtheuseofenforcementprocedures. EN 12.11.2012 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion C344/93 Year Court recommendation Court's analysis of the progress made Commission reply 2009 — Malta: the paying agency updated the LPIS in 2009 using 2008 ortho-photos and planned to finalise a full LPIS update with 2010 imagery for the 2011 claim year. 
SL 12.11.2012 UradnilistEvropskeunije C344/93 Leto Priporočilo Sodišča SPREMLJANJE IZVAJANJA PREJŠNJIH PRIPOROČIL ZA EKJS Doseženi napredek po analizi Sodišča Odgovor Komisije 2009 — Malta: plačilna agencija je leta 2009 posodobila LPIS z orto-foto posnetki iz leta 2008 in je načrtovala, da bo za leto vložitve zahtevkov 2011 končala polno posodo­ bitev LPIS s posnetki iz leta 2010.
2009 and 2008 (a) to overcome the systems weaknesses leading to errors relating to ineligible land or over-declarations of land as well as inaccurate entitlements, notably by improving the reliability and completeness of the data recorded in the LPIS (e.g. most recent ortho-photos); (a) As from claim year 2010 Commission Regulation (EU) No 146/2010 introduced the requirement for Member States to perform a quality assessment of the LPIS-GIS on an annual basis according to determined procedures. (a) The Commission shares the Court's evaluation. 
2009 in 2008 (a) sistemske slabosti, ki povzročajo napake v zvezi z neupra­ vičenimi zemljišči ali prijavljenimi prevelikimi površinami ter netočnimi pravicami, predvsem z izboljšanjem zaneslji­ vosti in popolnosti podatkov v LPIS (tj. najnovejših orto-foto posnetkov); (a) Uredba Komisije (EU) št.146/2010 je od leta vložitve zahtevkov 2010 uvedla zahtevo, da države članice v skladu z določenimi postopki vsako leto izvedejo oceno kakovosti LPIS-GIS. (a) Komisija se strinja z oceno Sodišča.
It will continue to monitor the results in the following years. 
V naslednjih letih bo nada­ ljevala spremljanje rezultatov.
As regards IACS the Court concluded that significant improvements were necessary especially in three out of the eight paying agencies audited (namely Cyprus, Greece, Malta) (paragraph 3.72). 
V zvezi z IAKS je Sodišče prišlo do zaključka, da so predvsem v treh od osmih revidiranih plačilnih agencij potrebne precejšnje izboljšave (namreč na Cipru, v Grčiji in na Malti) (odstavek 3.72).
In the three paying agencies the following corrective actions have been taken: The Court considered that the Commission guidelines as regards the work to be performed by certification bodies must be reviewed concerning the nature, coverage and reporting obligations, especially as regards the work related to the validation of Member States' control and inspection statistics (paragraph 3.75). 
V teh treh plačilnih agencijah so bili izvedeni naslednji popravni ukrepi: Sodišče je menilo, da je treba posodobiti smernice Komisije v zvezi z delom, ki ga morajo opraviti certifikacijski organi, in sicer glede značilnosti in obsega dela ter obveznosti poročanja, predvsem v zvezi z delom, povezanim s potrjevanjem statisti­ čnih podatkov kontrol in inšpekcijskih pregledov držav članic (odstavek 3.75).
The Commission put forward a new system for the validation of Member States' control and inspection statistics from 2010 called ‘reinforcement of assurance procedure’ (see paragraphs 3.34 and 3.35). 
Komisija je od leta 2010 uvedla nov sistem za potrjevanje statističnih podatkov kontrol in inšpekcijskih pregledov držav članic, ki se imenuje „postopek okrepitve zagotovila“ (glej odstavka 3.34 in 3.35).
The Commission does not share the view that the ‘reinforcement of assurance procedure’ is affected by conceptual deficiencies. 
Komisija se ne strinja z mnenjem Sodišča, da „postopek okrepitve zagotovila“ spodkopava pomanjkljiva zasnova.
The Commission has also checked the work performed by the certification bodies in relation to the control statistics of the two paying agencies concerned and shares the view that only limited assurance can be gained in these two specific cases. 
Komisija je tudi preve­ rila delo, ki ga opravljajo certifikacijski organi v povezavi s kontrol­ nimi statističnimi podatki zadevnih dveh plačilnih agencij, in se strinja, da je mogoče v teh dveh primerih doseči zgolj omejeno zagotovilo.
The Court recommended that the systems weaknesses identified were resolved. 
Sodišče je priporočilo odpravo ugotovljenih sistemskih slabosti.
In this regard, the most urgent defi­ ciencies to be addressed for the SPS and SAPS are (paragraph 3.73 (1)): (b) to ensure that all IACS databases provide a reliable and full audit trail for all modifications made; (b) No specific corrective actions were taken to address the Court’s recommendation. (b) As part of its audits, the Commission makes recommendations to Member States so as to improve the situation on a continual basis. 
V tem pogledu so pomanjkljivosti, ki jih je pri SEP in SEPP najbolj nujno odpraviti (odstavek 3.73 (1)): (b) zagotoviti, da vse podatkovne zbirke IAKS zagotavljajo zanesljivo in popolno revizijsko sled za vse spremembe; (b) Za izvajanje priporočila Sodišča niso bili sprejeti nobeni posebni popravni ukrepi. (b) Komisija v okviru svojih revizij oblikuje priporočila za države članice z namenom stalnega izboljševanja razmer.
Over the years, the results of audits show progress as regards the quality of information in the databases. 
Rezultati revizij iz leta v leto kažejo napredek v zvezi s kakovostjo infor­ macij v podatkovnih zbirkah.