natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
41 In light of the fact that the GAEC standards were reduced by more than 50 % (from 15 to 7), DG AGRI expected that the administrative burden for farmers was reduced by the Member States. 
41 Število standardov za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje se je zmanjšalo za več kot polovico (s 15 na sedem), zato je GD AGRI pričakoval, da so države članice zmanjšale upravno breme za kmete.
1 Concerning ‘the low minimum control rate of 1 %’, as said under IX (second indent): According to Article 68(4) of Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 the number of on‐the‐spot checks has to be increased in case a significant degree of non‐compliances with a given act or standard was revealed. 
1 V zvezi z „najmanjšo stopnjo kontrole v višini 1 %“, kakor je navedeno pod točko IX (druga alinea): v skladu s členom 68(4) Uredbe (EU) št.
In 2009, the Commission issued a working document on the issue) DS/2009/28/rev3) which is still in force. 
Komisija je leta 2009 objavila delovni dokument o tem vprašanju (DS/2009/28/rev3), ki še vedno velja.
Hence the minimum control rate can be adapted if needed. 
Zato se lahko najmanjša stopnja kontrole po potrebi prilagodi.
2 In particular, in Chapter II of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 and in Chapter III of Commission Implementing Act Regulation (EU) No 809/2014. 
2 Zlasti v poglavju II Delegirane uredbe Komisije (EU) št.
Reply of the Commission 47 42 The list of SMRs and GAECs was shortened considerably. 
Odgovori Komisije 47 42 Seznam predpisanih zahtev ravnanja in standardov za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje se je precej skrajšal.
The SMRs and GAECs were joined in one list, the Annex 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 
Ti zahteve in standardi so bili navedeni na istem seznamu v Prilogi 2 k Uredbi (EU) št.
Further, the SMRs were reviewed and only those provisions maintained which are directly addressed to farmers and linked to farming activity. 
Poleg tega so bile predpisane zahteve ravnanja pregledane, ohranile pa so se le določbe, ki se neposredno nanašajo na kmete in so povezane s kmetijsko dejavnostjo.
The Commission considers that it is hard to see how any further reduction could avoid cutting into major issues linking e.g. agriculture and environment, and so result in an undermining of e.g. EU environmental objectives. 
Po mnenju Komisije je malo verjetno, da morebitno nadaljnje zmanjšanje števila ne bi vplivalo na pomembna vprašanja, ki povezujejo npr. kmetijstvo in okolje, to pa bi ogrozilo npr. okoljske cilje EU.
44 Based on the Commission’s experience, the Paying Agencies, farmers’ associations and Farm Advisory Bodies’ perceptions about complexity appear to relate more to sectorial legislation than to cross‐compliance. 
44 Na podlagi izkušenj Komisije se stališča plačilnih agencij, združenj kmetov in kmetijskih svetovalnih služb glede zapletenosti bolj nanašajo na sektorsko zakonodajo kot na navzkrižno skladnost.
Further, the Member States have the flexibility to define the requirements which are needed to achieve the objectives of the EU Directive, so the complexity is also under their responsibility. 
Poleg tega lahko države članice opredelijo zahteve, ki so potrebne za doseganje ciljev direktive EU, zato spada zapletenost tudi v njihovo pristojnost.
In the context of simplification, the obligations included in the scope of cross ‐compliance were reviewed in several occasions in order to make them better targeted in relation to its controllability, its attribution directly to farmers (and not to Member States) and its link to agricultural activity. 
V okviru poenostavitve so bile obveznosti, vključene v področje uporabe navzkrižne skladnosti, večkrat pregledane, da se je izboljšala usmerjenost v zvezi z izvajanjem nadzora nad navzkrižno skladnostjo, njenim pripi-som neposredno kmetom (in ne državam članicam) ter njeno povezavo s kmetijsko dejavnostjo.
The relation between agriculture and the environment is complex by its nature so any implementation provision takes into account this level of complexity. 
Povezava med kmetijstvom in okoljem je po svoji naravi zapletena, zato to stopnjo zapletenosti upošteva vsaka izvedbena določba.
The implementation of environmental legislation tends to be more complex when Member States seek to ensure that farming practices have to change as little as possible while protecting the environment. 
Izvajanje okoljske zakonodaje je bolj zapleteno, kadar države članice poskušajo zagotoviti, da bi se kmetijske prakse čim manj spremenile in obenem varovale okolje.
Where this is the case, the introduction of simplification could lead to stricter rules than currently apply to some farmers. 
V takem primeru bi lahko poenostavitev povzročila strožja pravila, kot trenutno veljajo za nekatere kmete.
Box 2 is a good example of this: rules and controls would be simpler if all the distances were increased to the longest distance, but that would place avoidable burdens on many farmers. 
Okvir 2 to dobro ponazarja, saj bi bili pravila in kontrole enostavnejši, če bi se vse razdalje povečale na najdaljšo razdaljo, vendar bi se s tem številnim kmetom naložila bremena, ki se jim je mogoče izogniti.
45 The example of the Court illustrates the level of complexity of the relation between agriculture and the environment. 
45 Iz primera Sodišča je razvidna stopnja zapletenosti povezave med kmetijstvom in okolja.
It is appropriate to impose more distance for applying manure around a well which is used for drinking water than around other waterways. 
Primerno bi bilo uvesti večjo razdaljo za uporabo gnoja okrog vodnjaka, ki se uporablja za pitno vodo, kot okrog drugih vodnih poti.
The standardisation of these requirements would not sufficiently reflect the local environmental situations. 
Standardizacija teh zahtev ne bi ustrezno upoštevala lokalnih okoljskih razmer.
See also Commission's reply to paragraph 44. 
Glej tudi odgovor Komisije na odstavek 44.
Box 2 – Examples of requirements included in the cross‐compliance control manual in the United Kingdom – Northern Ireland The content of Box 2 describes the way a Member State has implemented sectorial legislation. 
Okvir 2 – Primeri podrobnih zahtev v zvezi z uporabo gnojil na Severnem Irskem (Združeno kraljestvo) Vsebina okvira 2 opisuje, kako država članica izvaja sektorsko zakonodajo.
46 The Commission considers that the number of control points implemented by the visited Member States cannot illustrate the variety of sectorial legislation incorporated in the scope of cross compliance. 
46 Po mnenju Komisije število kontrolnih točk, ki jih uporablja obiskana država članica, ne more ustrezno ponazoriti različnosti sektorske zakonodaje, ki jo zajema področje uporabe navzkrižne skladnosti.
Further according to Article 96 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, ‘Member States may make use of their existing administration and control systems to ensure compliance with the rules on cross‐ compliance.’ 
Poleg tega lahko v skladu s členom 96 Uredbe (EU) št.
Box 3 – Limited impact of the changes in the CAP for the period 2014 – 2020 on the checklists used by the control authorities in the United Kingdom – Northern Ireland – Second alinea The list of GAECs was shortened by more than 50 % with the last CAP reform, so it is up to the Member States' decision to increase control points. The ‘groundwater directive’ was converted from an SMR (2) into a GAEC. 
Okvir 3 – Omejen učinek sprememb SKP za obdobje 2014–2020 v zvezi s kontrolnimi seznami, ki jih uporabljajo kontrolni organi na Severnem Irskem (Združeno kraljestvo) - Druga alinea Seznam standardov za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje je bil z zadnjo reformo skupne kmetijske politike skrajšan za več kot polovico, zato odločitev o povečanju števila kontrolnih točk sprejmejo države članice.
Reply of the Commission 48 47 According to Article 96 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 ‘Member States may make use of their existing administration and control systems to ensure compliance with the rules on cross‐ compliance.’ 
Odgovori Komisije 48 47 V skladu s členom 96 Uredbe (EU) št. 1306/2013 lahko „[d]ržave članice [...] za zagotavljanje upoštevanja pravil o navzkrižni skladnosti uporabljajo svoje obstoječe upravne in kontrolne sisteme“.
A low level of breach may mask an insufficient control system and may lead to a risk for the EU's financial interests in the area of agriculture. 
Nizka raven kršitev lahko prikrije neustrezen kontrolni sistem, kar lahko povzroči tveganje za finančne interese EU na področju kmetijstva.
Moreover, just because there is a low level of breaches, it cannot be considered that this will remain the case if controls are further reduced: the existence of cross‐compliance controls can be expected to act as a disincentive to breach the rules. 
Poleg tega na podlagi nizke ravni kršitev ni mogoče sklepati, da se ob dodatnem zmanjšanju števila kontrol to ne bo spremenilo; lahko se pričakuje, da kontrole navzkrižne skladnosti odvračajo subjekte od kršitve pravil.
48 The proportion of farmers participating to SFS to direct payment beneficiaries (2014) varies between 3 % (Slovenia) and 77 % (Malta). 
48 Delež kmetov, ki so udeleženi v shemi za male kmete in so upravičeni do neposrednih plačil (2014), je različen in znaša od 3 % (Slovenija) do 77 % (Malta).
The SFS covers 4 % of total EU agricultural area.3 50 Due to the exemption from cross‐compliance requirements (and from greening), the costs of administration and control should logically decrease. 
Shema za male kmete zajema 4 % vseh kmetijskih površin v EU3. 50 Logično je, da bi se morali zaradi izvzetja iz obveznosti navzkrižne skladnosti (in zelene komponente) zmanjšati stroški upravljanja in kontrol.
Not only as the population subject to on‐the‐spot checks for cross compliance (and greening) decreases in the same proportion, but also because a simplified application process applies (less data to handle). 
Za enak delež se namreč zmanjša tudi populacija, pri kateri se izvajajo pregledi na kraju samem za navzkrižno skladnost (in zeleno komponento), uporablja pa se tudi poenostavljen postopek oddaje vlog (manj podatkov za obdelavo).
Further, the content of on‐the‐spot checks for the Small Farmers Scheme is itself more limited to the eligibility conditions. 
Poleg tega so pregledi na kraju samem v okviru sheme za male kmete bolj omejeni na pogoje za upravičenost.
51 These differences are explained by the different national agricultural structures and potentially also by different calculation methods applied under the Small Farmers Scheme. 
51 Razlike se lahko pojasnijo z različnimi nacionalnimi kmetijskimi strukturami in morda tudi z različnimi metodami izračuna, ki se uporabljajo v okviru sheme za male kmete.
Countries like Romania and Italy have potentially a large proportion of farmers eligible for the scheme, compared to other countries. 
Države, kot sta Romunija in Italija, imajo v primerjavi z drugimi državami potencialno velik delež kmetov, ki so upravičeni do zadevne sheme.
According to data provided by Member States, in Romania small farmers represent around 71 % of direct payment beneficiaries (2014) and 16.4 % of total agricultural land. 
V skladu s podatki držav članic mali kmetje v Romuniji obsegajo približno 71 % upravičencev do neposrednih plačil (2014) in 16,4 % vseh kmetijskih zemljišč.
52 The Commission took note of the Court ́s observation and would like to point‐out that the described exclusion does not stem from cross‐compliance legislation. 
52 Komisija upošteva pripombo Sodišča in želi poudariti, da opisano izvzetje ne izhaja iz zakonodaje o navzkrižni skladnosti.
Box 4 – Exemption of farmers from cross‐compliance obligations related to the Nitrates Directive in Lithuania The cross‐compliance system is fundamentally a control and penalty system applying to payments received under the CAP. 
Okvir 4 – Izvzetje malih kmetov iz obveznosti navzkrižne skladnosti v zvezi z direktivo o nitratih v Litvi Sistem navzkrižne skladnosti je v osnovi sistem nadzora in kazni, ki se uporablja za plačila, prejeta v okviru skupne kmetijske politike.
Therefore, exempting farms from cross‐compliance rules will not exempt them from having to comply with environmental legislation, including the Nitrates Directive. 
Zato kmetije z izvzetjem iz pravil o navzkrižni skladnosti ne bodo izvzete iz obveznosti izpolnjevanja pravil okoljske zakonodaje, vključno z direktivo o nitratih.
The different exemption thresholds mentioned in Box 4 are related to the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in the country in question and not to the cross‐ compliance system. 
Različni pragovi za izvzetje iz okvira 4 so povezani z izvajanjem direktive o nitratih v zadevni državi, ne pa s sistemom navzkrižne skladnosti.
In addition, excluding farmers from cross‐compliance penalties does not exclude them from control and checks stemming from environmental legislation. 
Poleg tega kmetje z izvzetjem iz kazni v okviru navzkrižne skladnosti ne bodo izvzeti iz kontrol in preverjanj, ki izhajajo iz okoljske zakonodaje.
3 Commission staff working document on the 'review of greening after one year' SWD(2016)218 final, p. 
3 Delovni dokument služb Komisije o pregledu zelene komponente po enem letu, SWD(2016) 218 final, str.
Reply of the Commission 49 54 Greening and the GAECs are two mechanisms that complement each other to address the objective of improving the environmental performance of EU agriculture: The green direct payment is a payment provided to farmers applying practices beneficial for the climate and the environment (crop diversification, maintenance of permanent grassland and having 5 % of EFA). 
Odgovori Komisije 49 54 Zelena komponenta in dobri kmetijski in okoljski pogoji sta mehanizma, ki se dopolnjujeta pri doseganju cilja izboljšanja okoljske učinkovitosti kmetijstva EU: plačilo za zeleno komponento je plačilo, izplačano kmetom, ki uporabljajo prakse, ki ugodno vplivajo na podnebje in okolje (diverzifikacija kmetijskih rastlin, ohranjanje trajnega travinja in vzpostavitev 5 % površin z ekološkim pomenom).
These practices differ from the GAEC standards: a crop rotation is not a crop diversification, the protection of permanent pastures is different from the maintenance of permanent grassland as referred to in greening legislation and retention of landscape features on all agricultural lands differs from having 5 % of EFA on arable land. 
Te prakse se razlikujejo od standardov za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje: kolobarjenje ni diverzifikacija kmetijskih rastlin, zaščita trajnih pašnikov se razlikuje od ohranjanja trajnega travinja v skladu z zakonodajo o zeleni komponenti, ohranjanje krajinskih značilnosti na vseh kmetijskih zemljiščih pa se razlikuje od vzpostavitve 5 % površin z ekološkim pomenom na ornem zemljišču.
The last reform of the CAP led to streamline and simplify the GAEC framework removing some GAEC standards, such as those relating to crop rotation and protection of permanent pastures. 
Z zadnjo reformo skupne kmetijske politike se je okvir za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje racionaliziral in poenostavil, saj so bili izločeni nekateri standardi za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje, na primer standardi, povezani s kolobarjenjem in zaščito trajnih pašnikov.
56 Member States have the possibility to select the 1 % minimum cross‐compliance control rate sample from the 5 % eligibility sample. 
56 Države članice imajo možnost, da iz vzorca 5 % za preverjanje upravičenosti izberejo vzorec najmanjše stopnje kontrole navzkrižne skladnost v višini 1 %.
Therefore, there is a synergy between both elements. 
Torej obstaja sinergija med obema elementoma.
Moreover, landscape elements protected under GAEC standards may be taken into account for the ecological focus area included in greening. 
Poleg tega se lahko krajinski elementi, zaščiteni na podlagi standardov za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje, upoštevajo pri površinah z ekološkim pomenom, vključenih v zeleno komponento.
57 Protecting landscape features on all agricultural land and having 5 % of arable land covered by EFA are different measures relating to biodiversity. 
57 Zaščita krajinskih značilnosti na vseh kmetijskih zemljiščih in vzpostavitev 5 % površin z ekološkim pomenom na ornem zemljišču sta različni merili, povezani z biotsko raznovrstnostjo.
The first requirement ensures that existing landscape features beneficial for biodiversity are retained while the second guarantees that any farmer benefiting from the green direct payment has dedicated at least 5 % of his/her arable land to EFA. 
Prva zahteva zagotavlja, da se ohranijo obstoječe krajinske značilnosti, ki koristijo biotski raznovrstnosti, druga pa zagotavlja, da vsak kmet, ki prejme plačilo za zeleno komponento, nameni vsaj 5 % svojega ornega zemljišča za površino z ekološkim pomenom.
These are two different objectives relating to biodiversity justifying two different sets of rules and checks. 
To sta različna cilja, ki sta povezana z biotsko raznovrstnostjo in utemeljujeta različna sklopa pravil in preverjanj.
Common Commission's reply for paragraph 59 and 60 The pure costs of cross‐compliance have to be distinguished from the costs occurring to farmers and Member States applying sectorial legislation. 
Skupni odgovor Komisije na odstavka 59 in 60 Čiste stroške navzkrižne skladnosti je treba razlikovati od stroškov, ki jih imajo kmetje in države članice pri uporabi sektorske zakonodaje.
Concerning sectorial legislation, the costs of compliance should be confronted with the costs occurring for the society in case of non‐compliance due to e.g. pollution of natural resources, eradication of diseases etc. Cross‐compliance will be taken into account in a planned study on administrative burden. 
Kar zadeva sektorsko zakonodajo, bi bilo treba stroške skladnosti primerjati s stroški, ki jih ima družba v primeru neizpolnjevanja pravil na primer zaradi onesnaženja naravnih virov, izkoreninjenja bolezni itd. Navzkrižna skladnost se bo upoštevala pri načrtovani študiji o upravnem bremenu.
61 Even if sectorial legislation already specifies minimum control rates, these are not additional controls as they may be used for cross‐compliance at the same time creating cost efficient synergetic effects. 
61 Tudi, če so v sektorski zakonodaji že določene najmanjše stopnje kontrole, to niso dodatne kontrole, saj se lahko uporabijo za navzkrižno skladnost in obenem ustvarijo stroškovno učinkovite učinke sinergije.
62 In practice, there are no additional records keeping obligations imposed by the Commission as the obligations under the SMRs existed before the introduction of cross‐compliance under the sectorial EU legislation. 
62 V praksi ni dodatnih obveznosti vodenja evidenc, ki bi jih uvedla Komisija, saj so obveznosti v okviru predpisanih zahtev ravnanja obstajale pred uvedbo navzkrižne skladnosti na podlagi sektorske zakonodaje EU.
Further, nor Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 neither Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014, laying down the details of the cross‐compliance system, introduced to farmers additional recording requirements. 
Poleg tega se za kmete dodatne zahteve glede evidentiranja niso uvedle niti z Delegirano uredbo Komisije (EU) št.
Reply of the Commission 50 63 The quoted study initiated by the European Parliament and commissioned be DG AGRI did not focus on cross‐ compliance but considered legislation outside the cross‐compliance scope (Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides). 
Odgovori Komisije 50 63 Navedena študija, ki jo je začel izvajati Evropski parlament in naročil GD AGRI, ni bila osredotočena na navzkrižno skladnost, ampak je obravnavala zakonodajo zunaj področja uporabe navzkrižne skladnosti (direktiva o trajnostni rabi pesticidov).
Moreover, it is outdated as in the meantime certain requirements left the scope of cross‐compliance (e.g. avoiding of encroachment of unwanted vegetation and crop rotation). 
Poleg tega je zastarela, saj nekatere zahteve ne spadajo več na področje uporabe navzkrižne skladnosti (npr. preprečevanje širitve nezaželene vegetacije in kolobarjenje).
64 This is a statement based on assumptions made by Paying Agencies which is contrary to the fact that the list of SMRs and GAECs was considerably shortened with the last CAP reform. 
64 Ta izjava temelji na predpostavkah plačilnih agencij, kar je v nasprotju z dejstvom, da je bil seznam predpisanih zahtev ravnanja in standardov za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje precej skrajšan v okviru zadnje reforme skupne kmetijske politike.
The Commission doubts the factual content of such statements, as the Paying Agencies do not back it up with figures. 
Komisija ima pomisleke glede dejanske vsebine takih izjav, saj jih plačilne agencije niso podprle s podatki.
65 The legislation already sets the framework for the calculation of penalties by defining severity, extent, and permanence as well as for the percentage to be applied for first time infringements, reoccurred infringements and infringements committed with intent. 
65 Zakonodaja že določa okvir za izračun kazni z opredelitvijo resnosti, obsega in trajnosti ter za odstotek, ki se uporabi v primeru prve kršitve, ponovne kršitve in namerne kršitve.
Hence, there is already a harmonised basis. 
Usklajena osnova torej že obstaja.
66 While the framework is set at EU level, on‐farm obligations under SMRs and GAEC are largely defined by Member States to take into account the challenges and agricultural structures in the national or regional conditions. 
66 Okvir je določen na ravni EU, obveznosti na ravni kmetij na podlagi predpisanih zahtev ravnanja ter dobrih kmetijskih in okoljskih pogojev pa večinoma opredelijo države članice, da se upoštevajo izzivi in kmetijske strukture v nacionalnih ali regionalnih razmerah.
The harmonised implementation of these principles across Member States is ensured, in particular, through the audits carried out by the Commission. 
Usklajeno izvajanje teh načel v vseh državah članicah se zagotovi zlasti z revizijami, ki jih izvaja Komisija.
Moreover, taking account of the Court's concerns, DG AGRI envisages organising best practice seminars with Member States on the issues. 
Poleg tega namerava GD AGRI ob upoštevanju pomislekov Sodišča o zadevnih vprašanjih z državami članicami organizirati seminarje o dobri praksi.
67 The concept of intentionality is an element to keep cross‐compliance reductions proportional, as it balanced the former minor non‐compliances without sanctions and now the early warning system. 
67 Koncept namernosti je element za ohranjanje sorazmernosti znižanj v zvezi z navzkrižno skladnostjo, saj je uravno-težil prejšnje manjše neizpolnjevanje pravil brez sankcij in zdaj mehanizem zgodnjega opozarjanja.
The issue was largely discussed in the last CAP reform and it was finally decided by Member States to maintain it. 
O vprašanju se je obsežno razpravljalo v okviru zadnje reforme skupne kmetijske politike in na koncu so se države članice odločile, da ga ohranijo.
There is judgement by the European Court of Justice of 27 February 2014 (C‐396/12) providing guidance on the concept of intentionality. 
Sodba Sodišča z dne 27. februarja 2014 (C-396/12) zagotavlja smernice o konceptu namernosti.
68 Member States have a certain liberty to design their evaluation grids (see Commission's comments under paragraph 40, to paragraph VIII and paragraph IX 6th indent). 
68 Države članice imajo določeno svobodo pri oblikovanju tabel za ocenjevanje (glej pripombe Komisije iz odstavka 40 na odstavek VIII in šesto alineo odstavka IX).
70 In the Commission’s view, the diverse responses by Member States can be explained by several factors, including the number of animal movements that took place on the farm, the mitigation action undertaken by the farmer, the delays in notification and the location of the farm in a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. 
70 Po mnenju Komisije se lahko različni odgovori držav članic pojasnijo z več dejavniki, vključno s številom premikov živali na kmetiji, ukrepi za blažitev, ki jih je sprejel kmet, prepozno poslanim obvestilom in lokacijo kmetije na območju, občutljivem za nitrate.