natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Three Member States (Italy (Veneto), Romania and Portugal) revised their selection procedures in order to give greater preference to investment projects under measure 121 addressing the new priorities: ɦ In Italy, the aid rates and the maximum amount of grant were increased for projects in the dairy sector. 
Tri države članice (Italija (Benečija), Romunija in Portugalska) so spremenile svoje izbirne postopke, tako da so dale prednost naložbenim projektom v okviru ukrepa 121, ki obravnavajo nove prednostne naloge: – v Italiji so za projekte v sektorju mleka povečali stopnje pomoči in največje vrednosti donacije.
The ‘new challenge’ priorities were added to the priority selection criteria, increasing the likelihood of selecting projects that addressed the new challenges. ɦ Romania changed its procedures by attributing additional points for project proposals that invested in renewable energy. ɦ The Portuguese authorities opened a specific call for project proposals for the dairy sector in which the aid rates were 10 % higher than the rates for non-priority sectors. 
Prednostne naloge novih izzivov so bile dodane prednostnim izbirnim merilom, s čimer se je povečala verjetnost izbire projektov, ki obravnavajo nove izzive; – Romunija je spremenila svoje postopke z dodeljevanjem dodatnih točk za predloge projektov, ki vlagajo v obnovljive vire energije; – portugalske oblasti so objavile poseben razpis za zbiranje predlogov za projekte za sektor mleka, pri katerem so bile stopnje pomoči 10 % višje od stopenj za neprednostne sektorje.
Three Member States (Germany (Baden-Württemberg), France and Luxembourg) did not change their procedures. 
Tri države članice (Nemčija (Baden-Württemberg), Francija in Luksemburg) niso spremenile svojih postopkov.
Poland was revising its procedures at the time of the audit. 
Poljska je v času revizije spreminjala svoje postopke.
21 Three Member States covered by the audit did not allocate additional resources to measure 121 following the ‘Health Check’ (these are Belgium (Wallonia), Spain (Catalonia) and Hungary). Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
21 Tri države članice, vključene v revizijo, po sistematskem pregledu niso dodelile novih virov za ukrep 121 (Belgija (Valonija), Španija (Katalonija) in Madžarska). Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
Beyond this, the observations presented in paragraphs 29 to 32 above show that many of the Member States did not implement eligibility rules, selection procedures or criteria that would allow them to target the additional resources to the priorities of climate change, renewable energy, water management and biodiversity. 
Poleg tega opažanja, predstavljena v odstavkih od 29 do 32, kažejo, da veliko držav članic ni uporabljalo pravil za upravičenost, izbirnih postopkov ali meril, ki bi jim omogočila usmerjanje dodatnih virov v prednostna področja podnebne spremembe, obnovljivi viri energije, gospodarjenje z vodnimi viri in biotska raznovrstnost.
Member States are obliged to ensure that ‘an amount equal’ to the supplementary funding resulting from the ‘Health Check’ and the EERP is spent on operations addressing the new challenges22. Member States have to ensure that a separate financial reporting for operations addressing the new challenges allows the Commission to verify that this condition has been respected. 
Države članice morajo zagotoviti, da se za dejavnosti, ki obravnavajo nove izzive, porabi vsota, enaka znesku dodatnih sredstev po sistematskem pregledu in evropskem načrtu za oživitev gospodarstva.22 Države članice morajo zagotoviti, da ločeno finančno poročanje o dejavnostih, ki obravnavajo nove izzive, Komisiji omogoča preverjanje upoštevanja tega pogoja.
Member States are also required to monitor, under the CMEF, to what extent the new challenges were being addressed by operations financed by the EAFRD, from 2010 onwards. 
Prav tako morajo v skladu z okvirom skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja tudi spremljati, koliko dejavnosti, ki jih financira EKSRP, obravnavajo nove izzive od leta 2010 naprej.
However, prior to the ‘Health Check’, operations already addressing the new challenges were not specifically reported upon, under either the financial reporting to the Commission or the CMEF. 
Vendar se o dejavnostih, ki so pred sistematskim pregledom že obravnavale nove izzive, ni posebej poročalo niti v okviru finančnega poročanja Komisiji niti pri okviru skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja.
This makes a comparison between the situation before and after the ‘Health Check’ almost impossible. 
Zato je primerjava med stanjem pred sistematskim pregledom in po njem skoraj nemogoča.
The Court’s audit identified the risk that Member States, which had planned to finance operations that addressed the new challenges prior to the ‘Health Check’, might use the extra funding for purposes other than further strengthening of the new priorities. 
Pri reviziji, ki jo je opravilo Sodišče, je bilo ugotovljeno tveganje, da bi države članice, ki so nameravale financirati dejavnosti za obravnavo novih izzivov pred sistematskim pregledom, dodatna sredstva uporabile za druge namene kot krepitev novih prednostnih nalog.
This may happen where Member States had planned to address similar priorities such as the dairy sector prior to the new funding being made available. 
To se lahko zgodi v državah članicah, ki so nameravale obravnavati podobne prednostne naloge, kot je sektor mleka, preden so bila na voljo nova sredstva.
The previously planned spending is then considered as fulfilling the requirements of the ‘Health Check’ and the ‘extra’‘Health Check’ monies are used for other purposes. 22 Article 69(5a) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, introduced by Regulation (EC) No 74/2009. 
Za predhodno načrtovano porabo se potem šteje, da izpolnjuje zahteve sistematskega pregleda, dodatna sredstva sistematskega pregleda pa se porabijo za druge namene. 22 Člen 69(5a) Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005, uveden z Uredbo (ES) št.
24 Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
74/2009. 24 Posebno poročilo št.
This risk materialised, as in one case examined such a substitution was explicitly described in a ‘Health Check’ RDP submitted to and approved by the Commission (see Box 4). 
To se je zgodilo v enem pregledanem primeru, ko je bila nadomestitev izrecno opisana v PRP sistematskega pregleda, predloženem Komisiji, ki ga je odobrila (glej okvir 4).
The Commission considers the type of budgetary substitution illustrated in Box 4 to be in conformity with the provisions of the regulation, as 59,8 million euro will be shown to cover operations addressing new priorities. 
Komisija proračunsko nadomestitev iz okvira 4 šteje za skladno z določbami uredbe, saj bo za 59,8 milijona EUR prikazano, da pokrivajo dejavnosti, ki obravnavajo nove prednostne naloge.
The Court therefore highlights the fact that not all the monies made available under the ‘Health Check’/EERP will be used to further strengthen the identified priorities and that the actual amount that does indeed strengthen those priorities will be impossible to identify, as compared to the situation prior to the ‘Health Check’. 
Sodišče zato poudarja, da vsa sredstva, ki so na voljo v okviru sistematskega pregleda oz. evropskega načrta za oživitev gospodarstva, ne bodo porabljena za dodatno krepitev opredeljenih prednostnih nalog in da bo nemogoče ugotoviti dejanski znesek, ki bi res okrepil te prednostne naloge v primerjavi s stanjem pred sistematskim pregledom.
25 BOX 4 GERMANY (BADEN WÜRTTEMBERG): EXTRA ‘HEALTH CHECK’ FUNDING REPLACES BUDGETED EXPENDITURE ALREADY ADDRESSING THE NEW CHALLENGES Within the revised ‘Health Check’ RDP submitted to the Commission, following the ‘Health Check’/EERP, an additional amount of 59,8 million euro was allocated to the RDP budget for Baden-Württemberg in order to address three new challenges: restructuring the dairy sector, climate change and biodiversity. 
25 OKVIR 4 NEMČIJA (BADEN‐WÜRTTEMBERG): DODATNA SREDSTVA SISTEMATSKEGA PREGLEDA NADOMEŠČAJO V PRORAČUNU PREDVIDENE ODHODKE, KI ŽE OBRAVNAVAJO NOVE IZZIVE V okviru PRP, ki je bil po sistematskem pregledu spremenjen in predložen Komisiji, je bil na podlagi sistematskega pregleda oz. evropskega načrta za oživitev gospodarstva za proračun za PRP za Baden-Württemberg namenjen dodatni znesek v višini 59,8 milijona EUR za obravnavo treh novih izzivov: prestrukturiranje sektorja mleka, podnebne spremembe in biotska raznovrstnost.
The funds were exclusively channelled to the existing measures 121 and 214 (agri-environment measure). 
Sredstva so bila usmerjena izključno v ukrepa 121 in 214 (kmetijsko-okoljski ukrep).
The restructuring of the dairy sector was to be addressed by measure 121. 
Prestrukturiranje sektorja mleka bi moral obravnavati ukrep 121.
The Baden-Württemberg authorities asserted that within the existing measures 121 and 214, as defined in the initial RDP adopted in November 2007, an amount greater than 59,8 million euro had already been committed for operations addressing the new challenges prior to the ‘Health Check’. 
Oblasti v Baden-Württembergu so trdile, da so bile v okviru obstoječih ukrepov 121 in 214, kot je bilo opredeljeno v prvotnem PRP, sprejetem novembra 2007, že prevzete obveznosti v znesku nad 59,8 milijona EUR za dejavnosti, ki so obravnavale nove izzive pred sistematskim pregledom.
The Baden-Württemberg authorities consequently subtracted an amount of 59,8 million euro from the existing budgets for measures 121 and 214, and reallocated this amount to several existing measures, of which some 18 million euro to measure 121 in order to address specific regional needs. 
Zato so od obstoječih proračunov za ukrepa 121 in 214 odvzele 59,8 milijona EUR in ta znesek prerazporedile med več obstoječih ukrepov, od tega približno 18 milijonov EUR za ukrep 121 za obravnavanje posebnih regionalnih potreb.
Within the budget of measure 121, the authorities ring-fenced 26 million euro for the new challenge of restructuring the dairy sector. 
Oblasti so v okviru proračuna za ukrep 121 namenile 26 milijonov EUR za nov izziv prestrukturiranja sektorja mleka.
Pre ‘Health Check’ expenditure data however indicates that the likely amount of the original budget to be spent on the dairy sector was already some 35 million euro. Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
Podatki o odhodkih pred sistematskim pregledom pa kažejo, da je verjetni znesek prvotnega proračuna za sektor mleka že znašal približno 35 milijonov EUR. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
TARGETING THE AID TO AVOID RISKS TO SUSTAINABILITY AND DEADWEIGHT INSUFFICIENT VERIFICATION OF THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENT PROJECTS SUBMITTED 56. 
USMERJANJE POMOČI, DA SE PREPREČIJO TVEGANJE ZA TRAJNOST IN MRTVE IZGUBE NEZADOSTNO PREVERJANJE EKONOMSKE UPRAVIČENOSTI GOSPODARSTEV IN PRIJAVLJENIH NALOŽBENIH PROJEKTOV 56.
Member States should ensure that the economic viability of the proposed investments on the agricultural holdings can be demonstrated before awarding the grant to avoid giving aid to holdings that are likely to fail and to ensure the sustainability of the investment aided. 
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da se ekonomska upravičenost predlaganih naložb v kmetijska gospodarstva lahko dokaže pred dodelitvijo donacije, da se prepreči dajanje pomoči gospodarstvom, ki bodo verjetno neuspešna, in da se zagotovi trajnost naložbe, za katero je bila dodeljena pomoč.
Despite there being no legal obligation to do so, all Member States (regions) audited required applicants to submit some level of proof of the economic viability of their holding and/or of the project proposal23. Nevertheless, the audit found that the level and the extensiveness of such proof varies significantly between Member States. 
Vse revidirane države članice (regije) so od vlagateljev zahtevale, da predložijo nekaj dokazov o ekonomski upravičenosti svojega gospodarstva in/ali predloga projekta, čeprav za to ne obstaja zakonska obveznost.23 Vendar je bilo pri reviziji ugotovljeno, da se raven in obseg teh dokazov med državami članicami močno razlikujeta.
In Luxembourg, an attestation is required for investments above a certain threshold, certifying that the farmer has received economic counselling regarding his investment project — this attestation contains a summary of the holding’s gross profit and the project’s costs, but not the result of the economic analysis. 
V Luksemburgu se za naložbe nad nekim pragom zahteva potrdilo o tem, da je bil kmet deležen ekonomskega svetovanja za svoj naložbeni projekt. To potrdilo vsebuje povzetek bruto dobička kmetijskega gospodarstva in stroškov projekta, ne pa tudi rezultata ekonomske analize.
In Hungary, the quality and soundness of the financial plan to be submitted with the project application are evaluated through a project scoring system based on a computerised comparison with reference data. 
Na Madžarskem se kakovost in trdnost finančnega načrta, ki ga je treba predložiti s projektno vlogo, ocenjujeta po sistemu točkovanja, ki temelji na računalniški primerjavi z referenčnimi podatki.
More than a quarter of the projects selected in a 2008 call for proposals scored zero in one or more criteria in the assessment of the ‘realism of the financial plan’. 
Več kot četrtina projektov, izbranih na razpisu za zbiranje predlogov leta 2008, je pri ocenjevanju realnosti finančnega načrta pri enem ali več merilih dobila nič točk.
The Court identified that there was no minimum score set for the evaluation of the financial plan and that all projects were accepted regardless of the score obtained. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da za ocenjevanje finančnega načrta ni bilo določeno najmanjše število točk in da so bili sprejeti vsi projekti, ne glede na število točk, ki so jih prejeli.
In Poland, the financial soundness of a project has to be demonstrated by the applicant only in cases where the project’s objective is specifically aimed at increasing the gross added value of the holding. 
Na Poljskem so morali vlagatelji finančno trdnost projekta dokazati samo, če je bil cilj projekta posebej usmerjen v povečanje bruto dodane vrednosti gospodarstva.
It is, however, up to the farmer to tick, in his application, if this is the aim of his project, which would automatically initiate a further analysis of his claim by the administration. 
Vendar se vsak kmet sam odloči, ali bo v svoji vlogi označil, da je to cilj njegovega projekta. Če to označi, upravni organi njegovo vlogo avtomatično dodatno analizirajo.
None of the 10 projects reviewed by the Court had indicated this as an objective, and so no viability check was performed for them. 
V nobenem od desetih projektov, ki jih je pregledalo Sodišče, to ni bilo označeno kot cilj, zato zanje ni bila preverjena ekonomska upravičenost.
23 The regulations require only that the proposed investment improves the overall performance of the holding. 
23 V uredbah se zahteva samo, da predlagana naložba izboljša splošno učinkovitost gospodarstva.
26 Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
26 Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
The Court has identified in previous reports (e.g. on the Leader ap-proach)24 that a risk to the efficiency of any grant-based programme is that the investment would have been carried out anyway without the public aid. 
Sodišče je v prejšnjih poročilih (npr. o pristopu Leader)24 ugotovilo, da je tveganje za učinkovitost katerega koli programa, ki temelji na donaciji, da bi se naložba izvedla tudi brez javne pomoči.
Such investments constitute ‘deadweight’. 
Takšne naložbe pomenijo „mrtve izgube“.
A strong indication of a possible deadweight effect is where projects had already started or even been completed before the aid was granted. 
Močan znak možnosti učinka mrtvih izgub je, da so se projekti že začeli izvajati ali so bili celo že zaključeni, preden je bila odobrena pomoč.
If aid is granted retroactively, the farmer demonstrated, by his initial investment decision, that he was willing to carry out the investment even in the absence of an agreement for public support. 
Če se pomoč odobri za nazaj, je kmet s svojo prvotno odločitvijo za naložbo pokazal, da je bil pripravljen naložbo izvesti tudi brez sporazuma o javni podpori.
For measure 121, there are different approaches regarding the approval of a project for which work has started: ɦ In Luxembourg, agricultural holdings may apply for investment aid after they have already carried out the investment if the amount is under 100 000 euro, or the project started between the beginning of the programming period and the date of publication of the national implementing law. ɦ In other Member States, including Spain (Catalonia), Italy (Veneto) and Portugal, holdings may start the potentially eligible investment on the date they submit their application for aid, without having the certainty that the project will be approved for financing. ɦ In Belgium (Wallonia) and Romania, investment project costs are eligible only from the date that the grant was approved, which represents good practice25. 
Pri ukrepu 121 obstajajo različni pristopi za odobritev projekta, za katerega so se dela že začela: – v Luksemburgu lahko kmetijska gospodarstva zaprosijo za pomoč za naložbe, potem ko so naložbo že izvedla, če znesek ni večji od 100 000 EUR ali če se je projekt začel med začetkom programskega obdobja in datumom objave nacionalnih predpisov za njegovo izvajanje; – v drugih državah članicah, vključno s Španijo (Katalonija), Italijo (Benečija) in Portugalsko, lahko gospodarstva začnejo potencialno upravičeno naložbo na datum predložitve svoje vloge za pomoč brez zagotovila, da bo financiranje za projekt odobreno; – V Belgiji (Valonija) in Romuniji so stroški naložbenih projektov upravičeni samo od datuma odobritve donacije, kar je dobra praksa.25 63.
63. The audit found that for four of the Member States/regions audited (Spain (Catalonia), Italy (Veneto), Luxembourg and Portugal (mainland)), half of the projects in the sample had started (or had even been completed) before the grant was awarded. 
Pri reviziji je bilo za štiri revidirane države članice/regije (Španija (Katalonija), Italija (Benečija), Luksemburg in Portugalska (celinska)) ugotovljeno, da se je polovica projektov v vzorcu začela izvajati (ali pa so bili celo že zaključeni) pred odobritvijo donacije.
In these cases, the deadweight risk, i.e. that the farmer would have carried out the investment even in the absence of public support, is significant. 
V teh primerih je tveganje mrtvih izgub, tj. da bi kmet izvedel naložbo tudi brez javne podpore, veliko. 24 Posebno poročilo št.
24 Special Report No 5/2010 on implementation of the Leader approach for rural development (http://eca.europa.eu). 
5/2010 – Izvajanje pristopa Leader pri razvoju podeželja (http://eca.europa.eu).
25 Similar rules applied in Germany, France, Hungary and Poland, although exceptions were allowed. Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
25 Podobna pravila se uporabljajo v Nemčiji, Franciji, na Madžarskem in Poljskem, čeprav so bile dovoljene izjeme. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
Legislative proposals from the Commission to amend the current rural development regulation26 specify that expenditure will be eligible only after a grant application has been submitted. 
Zakonodajni predlogi Komisije za spremembo sedanje uredbe za razvoj podeželja26 natančno določajo, da so odhodki upravičeni šele po predložitvi vloge za donacijo.
This will prevent retrospective approval of the sort permitted in Luxembourg, but does not sufficiently address the risk of deadweight as the investment project could still start before the approval of the application (and even before the application has been submitted, with the provision that costs incurred up to the application date will not be eligible for support). 
To bo preprečilo odobritve za nazaj, kakršne so bile dovoljene v Luksemburgu, vendar ne obravnava zadosti tveganja mrtvih izgub, saj se projekti še vedno lahko začnejo izvajati pred odobritvijo vloge (ali celo pred predložitvijo vloge, če stroški, ki so nastali do datuma predložitve, niso upravičeni do podpore).
The Commission proposal for the 2014–20 rural development period reiterates this requirement. 
V predlogu Komisije za razvoj podeželja v obdobju 2014–2020 se ta zahteva ponovi.
However, it also foresees good practice in this respect, with the explicit provision that Member States may provide that expenditure is eligible only from the date of grant approval (see Box 5). 
Vendar je v njem glede tega predvidena tudi dobra praksa z izrecno določbo, da lahko države članice določijo, da so odhodki upravičeni šele od datuma odobritve donacije (glej okvir 5).
26 COM(2010) 537 final of 30 September 2010 — Commission's proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005; legislative codecision procedure COD/2010/0266. 
26 COM (2010) 537 konč. z dne 30. septembra 2010 – Predlog Komisije o uredbi o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005, zakonodajni postopek soodločanja COD/2010/0266.
28 BOX 5 COMMISSION PROPOSAL FOR THE 2014–2027 RURAL DEVELOPMENT PERIOD With the exception of general costs [preparatory costs]..., in respect of investment operations..., only expenditure which has been incurred after an application has been submitted to the competent authority shall be considered eligible. 
28 OKVIR 5 PREDLOG KOMISIJE ZA RAZVOJ PODEŽELJA V OBDOBJU 2014–202027 Razen splošnih stroškov [pripravljalni stroški] [...] v zvezi z naložbenimi dejavnostmi [...] se za upravičene štejejo le izdatki, ki so nastali po predložitvi vloge pristojnemu organu.
Member States may provide in their programmes that only expenditure which has been incurred after the application for support has been approved by the competent authority shall be eligible. 
Države članice lahko v svojih programih določijo, da so upravičeni le izdatki, ki so nastali po tem, ko je vlogo za podporo odobril pristojni organ.
27 COM(2011) 627 final/2 — Commission's proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); presented by the Commission in the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2014–20. 
27 COM(2011) 627 konč./2 – Predlog Komisije o Uredbi Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP), ki ga je Komisija predstavila v zakonodajnem okviru za SKP v obdobju 2014–2020.
29 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 66. The Court’s audit found that rural development investment measure 121, ‘Modernisation of agricultural holdings’, achieved its nominal objective in that it resulted in the modernisation of holdings. 
Sodišče je pri reviziji ugotovilo, da je naložbeni ukrep 121 za razvoj podeželja, posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev, dosegel cilj iz svojega poimenovanja, saj je bil njegov rezultat posodobitev gospodarstev.
However it concludes that this was almost inevitable given the fact that almost any investment or purchase of new equipment can be considered to modernise to some extent and fulfil the very broad criteria of eligibility (paragraphs 23 to 24). 
Vendar je tudi zaključilo, da je bilo to skoraj neizogibno, saj se skoraj vsaka naložba ali nakup opreme lahko šteje za delno posodobitev in izpolni zelo široka merila za upravičenost (odstavka 23 in 24).
Though Member States are required to target investment aid on clearly identified needs in their rural areas, the extent of targeting varies significantly between the Member States reviewed. 
Čeprav morajo države članice pomoč za naložbe usmerjati v jasno opredeljene potrebe na svojih podeželskih območjih, se raven usmerjanja med revidiranimi državami članicami zelo razlikuje.