natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Depending on these factors the Court observed a wide range of situations which resulted in an unequal treatment of farmers across the Member States visited. 
Glede na te dejavnike je Sodišče ugotovilo mnogo različnih stanj, ki so privedla do neenake obravnave kmetov v obiskanih državah članicah.
SAPS PAYMENTS CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO FARMERS’ INCOME BUT THIS SUPPORT BENEFITS MAINLY LARGER FARMS OVERALL SAPS PAYMENTS SUPPORT FARM INCOME IN THE NEW MEMBER STATES ... 
PLAČILA IZ SEPP PRECEJ PRISPEVAJO K DOHODKOM KMETOV, VENDAR TA PODPORA KORISTI PREDVSEM VELIKIM KMETIJAM PLAČILA IZ SEPP NA SPLOŠNO PODPIRAJO DOHODKE KMETOV V NOVIH DRŽAVAH ČLANICAH ...
SAPS aims to support farmers’ income but that objective has not been further defined in terms of the desired level of aid or its distribution. 
Namen SEPP je dohodkovna podpora kmetom, vendar ta cilj ni dodatno opredeljen v smislu želene ravni pomoči ali njenega razdeljevanja.
From 2004 to 2010 (financial years 2005 to 2011), farmers in the new Member States received approximately 21,5 billion euro in SAPS pay-ments24. In 2010 there were some 3 million beneficiaries and the average SAPS payment per farm amounted to 1 668 euro25. All Member States applying the SAPS used most of their respective financial envelopes. 
Od leta 2004 do leta 2010 (proračunska leta od 2005 do 2011) so kmetje v novih državah članicah prejeli približno 21,5 milijarde EUR plačil iz SEPP.24 Leta 2010 je bilo približno 3 milijone upravičencev, povprečno plačilo iz SEPP na kmetijo pa je znašalo 1 668 EUR.25 Vse države članice, ki uporabljajo SEPP, so porabile večino svojega finančnega okvira.
Overall, the SAPS has thus contributed to raising farmers’ income26. 46. 
Tako je SEPP na splošno prispevala k povečanju dohodkov kmetov.26 46.
The latest analysis of farmers’ income carried out by the Commission concludes that, in spite of a strong decline in 2009 which is explained by the current economic crisis, farmers’ income in the EU-12 (i.e. the Member States applying the SAPS plus Malta and Slovenia) has stayed well above their level reached before accession. 
Po ugotovitvah najnovejše analize dohodkov kmetov, ki jo je izvedla Komisija, so dohodki kmetov v EU-12 (države članice, ki uporabljajo SEPP, ter Malta in Slovenija) kljub večjemu znižanju leta 2009 zaradi sedanje gospodarske krize ostali precej nad predpristopno ravnijo.
Overall, the income per annual working unit increased by 34 % from 2004 to 200927. This increase is explained by the higher prices prevailing in the single market and the growth of public support to the farm sector. 
Na splošno so se dohodki na letno delovno enoto od leta 2004 do leta 2009 povišali za 34 %.27 To povečanje je posledica višjih cen na enotnem trgu in rasti javne podpore kmetijskemu sektorju.
24 For amounts paid per financial year and Member State see Annex II. 
24 Za zneske, plačane na proračunsko leto in državo članico, glej Prilogo II.
25 See Annex III. 
25 Glej Prilogo III.
26 To measure the overall level of direct income support to the farm sector, the complementary national direct payments (CNDP) have to be added. 
26 Pri merjenju skupne ravni neposredne dohodkovne podpore kmetijskemu sektorju je treba prišteti dopolnilna nacionalna neposredna plačila.
According to the Commission they amounted in the same period to 13,4 billion euro. 
Po navedbah Komisije so v istem obdobju znašala 13,4 milijarde EUR.
27 24 Commission document ‘Developments in the income situation of the EU agricultural sector’, Brussels 2010, http://ec.europa. eu/agriculture/rica/pdf/ hc0301_income.pdf. 
27 Dokument Komisije Developments in the income situation of the EU agricultural sector (novosti v zvezi z dohodkovnim stanjem v kmetijskem sektorju EU), Bruselj 2010, http:// ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ rica/pdf/hc0301_income. pdf.
The income is measured per annual working unit (AWU) which, in simplified terms, corresponds to one person employed on a full-time basis in an agricultural holding. Special Report No 16/2012 – The effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the new Member States 
Dohodek se meri z letno delovno enoto, ki, poenostavljeno povedano, pomeni eno zaposleno osebo za polni delovni čas na kmetijskem gospodarstvu. 24 Posebno poročilo št. 16/2012 – Uspešnost sheme enotnega plačila na površino kot prehodnega sistema za podporo kmetom v novih državah članicah
SAPS payments may be considered as the most important element of the net income of farmers in these Member States as shown in Graph 1. 
Plačila iz SEPP bi lahko šteli za najpomembnejši element čistih dohodkov kmetov v teh državah članicah, kar je razvidno iz diagrama 1.
However, the evolution of farm income varies greatly from Member State to Member State. 
Vendar se razvoj kmetijskih dohodkov precej razlikuje med državami članicami.
While in Poland there is an overall positive evolution, in Hungary and Slovakia even with the introduction of SAPS payments there was a substantial decline in the net value added of agricultural production. 
Medtem ko je razvoj na Poljskem na splošno pozitiven, je na Madžarskem in Slovaškem kljub uvedbi plačil iz SEPP prišlo do precejšnjega znižanja čiste dodane vrednosti kmetijske proizvodnje.
EVOLUTION OF SAPS PAYMENTS, OTHER SUBSIDIES AND AGRICULTURAL ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME FOR ALL SAPS MEMBER STATES (VALUES AT CURRENT PRICES) 25 GRAPH 1 18 000 16 000 14 000 12 000 10 000 8 000 6 000 4 000 2 000 0 Source: European Court of Auditors based on Economic Accounts for Agriculture (Eurostat). SAPS payments Other subsidies on products and production Agricultural entrepreneurial income 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Special Report No 16/2012 – The effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the new Member States Amounts in million euro 
RAZVOJ PLAČIL IZ SEPP, DRUGIH SUBVENCIJ IN KMETIJSKEGA PODJETNIŠKEGA DOHODKA V VSEH DRŽAVAH ČLANICAH, KI UPORABLJAJO SEPP (VREDNOSTI V TEKOČIH CENAH) 25 DIAGRAM 1 18 000 16 000 14 000 12 000 10 000 8 000 6 000 4 000 2 000 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi ekonomskih računov za kmetijstvo (Eurostat). plačila iz SEPP druge subvencije za proizvode in proizvodnjo podjetniški dohodek kmetijstva Posebno poročilo št. 16/2012 – Uspešnost sheme enotnega plačila na površino kot prehodnega sistema za podporo kmetom v novih državah članicah Zneski v milijonih EUR
BUT THEIR IMPACT VARIES ACCORDING TO FARM SIZE, TYPE OF FARM AND MEMBER STATE 49. The Court notes that, in all SAPS Member States visited, the area-based nature28 of the scheme combined with the dual structure of the farm sector resulted in a particularly strong concentration of the payments on larger farms while the aid paid to smaller farms was sometimes very low29. 
Sodišče ugotavlja, da je dejstvo, da SEPP temelji na površini,28 v povezavi z dvodelno strukturo kmetijskega sektorja v vseh obiskanih državah članicah, ki to shemo izvajajo, povzročilo zelo močno koncentracijo plačil na velikih kmetijah, medtem ko je bila pomoč, izplačana manjšim kmetijam, včasih zelo nizka.29 Precejšnje število kmetov sploh ne prejme pomoči iz SEPP, ker je upravičena površina njihovih kmetijskih gospodarstev premajhna.
This concentration is particularly evident in Bulgaria where in 2010 2 % of the farms received more than half of the national SAPS envelope. 
Ta koncentracija je očitna zlasti v Bolgariji, kjer je bila leta 2010 več kot polovica nacionalnega finančnega okvira za SEPP dodeljena 2 % kmetij.
There is an inherent contradiction in the design of SAPS aid which is on the one hand intended as a support to individual income and the fact that its distribution takes no account of the specific circumstances of the recipient. 
Pomoč iz SEPP je zasnovana protislovno, saj je po eni strani mišljena kot podpora individualnim dohodkom, po drugi strani pa se pri razdeljevanju ne upoštevajo specifične razmere prejemnika.
Overall, in 2010 98 % of the SAPS beneficiaries received less than 10 000 euro representing 49 % of the total value of payments. Conversely, 0,2 % of beneficiaries received over 100 000 euro representing 24 % of the total value of payments. 
Leta 2010 je 98 % upravičencev do SEPP prejelo manj kot 10 000 EUR, kar je predstavljalo 49 % skupne vrednosti plačil, 0,2 % upravičencev pa je prejelo več kot 100 000 EUR, kar je predstavljalo 24 % skupne vrednosti plačil.
Contrary to SPS, the legal framework governing SAPS does not provide for an option to differentiate payments within a Member State to better take into account the agricultural potential of regions or environmental criteria. 
Pravni okvir za SEPP za razliko od SEP ne zagotavlja možnosti za diferenciacijo plačil v državah članicah, s čimer bi bilo mogoče bolj upoštevati kmetijski potencial regij ali okoljska merila.
This makes SAPS a simple, easy-to-implement scheme but does not allow for targeting payments to the specific needs of regions. 
Zato je SEPP preprosta in enostavna za izvajanje, vendar ne omogoča usmerjanja plačil v specifične potrebe regij.
In Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, the Court found that beneficiaries could realise a good return from SAPS payments when renting or buying agricultural land without undertaking active farming, as they do not have to carry out any particular activity on the land. 
Sodišče je na Madžarskem, v Romuniji in na Slovaškem ugotovilo, da so bila lahko plačila iz SEPP za upravičence zelo donosna, če so najemali ali kupovali kmetijska zemljišča, ne da bi začeli dejavno kmetovati, saj jim na zemljiščih ni bilo treba izvajati nobene posebne dejavnosti.
In such cases SAPS payments do not contribute to the Treaty objective of increasing agricultural productivity30. 28 See paragraph 8. 
V takih primerih plačila iz SEPP ne prispevajo k cilju povečanja kmetijske produktivnosti, določenega v Pogodbi.30 28 Glej odstavek 8.
29 For the distribution of SAPS aid see Annex III. 
29 Za razdeljevanje pomoči iz SEPP glej Prilogo III.
30 Article 39 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. 
30 Člen 39 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
The impact of SAPS aid on farm income varies also significantly between farm types. 
Učinek pomoči iz SEPP na dohodke kmetij se precej razlikuje med vrstami kmetij.
In particular, with the accession to the EU, animal production suffered a strong decline in many new Member States while many animal breeders had no or very limited access to SAPS aid, because they had no or very little agricultural land. 
Po pridružitvi EU je namreč v mnogih novih državah članicah prišlo do velikeg upada živinoreje, saj so imeli mnogi živinorejci zelo omejen dostop do pomoči iz SEPP, ali pa ga sploh niso imeli, ker niso imeli kmetijskih zemljišč, ali pa so jih imeli zelo malo.
With the option to pay complementary national direct payments, the new Member States could address specific needs. 
Z možnostjo plačila dopolnilnih nacionalnih neposrednih plačil so lahko nove države članice obravnavale specifične potrebe.
In addition, in 2009, within the framework of the CAP Health Check, the Council opened to Member States the option to use a part of the national SAPS envelope in order to address specific disadvantages affecting certain farmers, e.g. in economically vulnerable or environmentally sensitive areas, or for economically vulnerable types of farming31. 
Poleg tega je Svet leta 2009 v okviru pregleda stanja SKP državam članicam ponudil možnost, da del nacionalnega finančnega okvira za SEPP porabijo za obravnavo specifičnega neugodnega položaja, v katerem so nekateri kmetje npr. v gospodarsko ranljivih in okoljsko občutljivih območjih ali kmetje, ki se ukvarjajo z gospodarsko ranljivimi vrstami kmetijstva31.
All new Member States visited made use of this option in one way or another. 
Tako ali drugače so jo izkoristile vse obiskane nove države članice.
However, as this possibility became available as from 2010 only, there is no evaluation yet of its impact on the distribution of farmers’ income. 
Ker pa je ta možnost na voljo šele od leta 2010, njen učinek na porazdelitev dohodkov kmetov še ni ovrednoten.
31 Article 68(1) and Article 131 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. 
31 Člen 68(1) in člen 131 Uredbe (ES) št. 73/2009.
27 GRAPH 2 DISTRIBUTION OF SAPS INCOME SUPPORT IN 2010 (IN EURO) ≥ 500 000 ≥ 300 000 and < 500 000 ≥ 100 000 and < 300 000 ≥ 50 000 and < 100 000 ≥ 10 000 and < 50 000 ≥ 5 000 and < 10 000 ≥ 500 and < 5 000 < 500 Percentage of total payments Percentage of total beneficiares 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % Source: European Court of Auditors based on European Commission payment data (CATS). Special Report No 16/2012 – The effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the new Member States 
27 DIAGRAM 2 RAZDELJEVANJE DOHODKOVNE PODPORE IZ SEPP V LETU 2010 (V EUR) ≥ 500 000 ≥ 300 000 and < 500 000 ≥ 100 000 and < 300 000 ≥ 50 000 and < 100 000 ≥ 10 000 and < 50 000 ≥ 5 000 and < 10 000 ≥ 500 and < 5 000 < 500 odstotek vseh plačil odstotek vseh upravičencev 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov Evropske komisije o plačilih (CATS). Posebno poročilo št. 16/2012 – Uspešnost sheme enotnega plačila na površino kot prehodnega sistema za podporo kmetom v novih državah članicah
28 THE EFFECTS OF SAPS PAYMENTS ON RESTRUCTURING AND INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY OF FARMS HAVE NOT YET BEEN ASSESSED 56. 
UČINEK PLAČIL IZ SEPP NA PRESTRUKTURIRANJE IN IZBOLJŠANJE UČINKOVITOSTI KMETIJ ŠE NI BIL OCENJEN 56.
The level of SAPS payments per hectare in the new Member States was established with a view not to hindering the necessary restructuring of the agricultural sector and not to creating considerable income disparities and social distortions in the rural societies. 
Raven plačil iz SEPP na hektar v novih državah članicah je bila določena tako, da ne bi ovirala potrebnega prestrukturiranja kmetijskega sektorja ter ustvarjala večjih razlik v dohodkih in socialnih izkrivljanj v podeželskih skupnostih.
The Commission indicated that ‘introducing direct payments at a low level would contribute to stabilising agricultural income without compromising the process of restructuring’32. 57. 
Komisija je navedla, da bi uvedba neposrednih plačil na nizki ravni prispevala k stabilizaciji kmetijskega dohodka, ne da bi ogrožala proces prestrukturiranja.32 57.
However, the Commission has not yet analysed the effects of SAPS aid on the restructuring as well as on the productivity and profitability of farms in the new Member States. 
Vendar Komisija še ni analizirala učinkov pomoči iz SEPP na prestrukturiranje ter produktivnost in donosnost kmetij v novih državah članicah.
STRUCTURAL WEAKNESSES STILL ADVERSELY AFFECT FARM INCOME 58. 
STRUKTURNE SLABOSTI ŠE VEDNO NEGATIVNO VPLIVAJO NA DOHODKE KMETIJ 58.
Various studies as well as the Court’s own findings indicate that structural factors such as fragmented land ownership, low technological level of farms, insufficient storage capacities, underdeveloped facilities for food processing, lack of skilled workers or difficult access to financing adversely affect the expected impact of SAPS aid on the modernisation and viability of the farms33. OTHER FACTORS REDUCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAPS PAYMENTS 59. 
Različne študije, pa tudi ugotovitve Sodišča kažejo, da strukturni dejavniki, kot so razdrobljeno lastništvo zemljišč, nizka tehnološka raven na kmetijah, nezadostne skladiščne zmogljivosti, premalo razviti obrati za predelavo hrane, pomanjkanje kvalificiranih delavcev ali težek dostop do financiranja, negativno vplivajo na pričakovani učinek pomoči iz SEPP na posodabljanje in rentabilnost kmetij.33 DRUGI DEJAVNIKI, KI ZMANJŠUJEJO USPEŠNOST PLAČIL IZ SEPP 59.
The effectiveness of SAPS in supporting farm income can be reduced where the aid is ‘capitalised’ in land or land lease prices. 
Uspešnost SEPP pri dohodkovni podpori kmetijam se lahko zmanjša, kadar je pomoč „kapitalizirana“ v cenah ali zakupninah zemljišč.
This reduces the effectiveness of the support and can negatively affect the profitability of farms34. 34 The Court had already noted in another audit that similar effects could be observed following the introduction of the Single Payment Scheme in the EU-15, in particular in the regional model: Special Report No 5/2011. 32 SEC(2002) 95 final of 30 January 2002: Enlargement and Agriculture: Successfully integrating the new Member States into the CAP (paragraph 4.2). 
To pomeni, da morajo kmetje plačati višje cene ali zakupnine zemljišč samo zaradi prejemanja podpore iz SEPP, kar zmanjšuje uspešnost podpore in lahko negativno vpliva na donosnost kmetij.34 32 SEC(2002) 95 final z dne 30. januarja 2002: Enlargement and Agriculture: Successfully integrating the new Member States into the CAP (širitev in kmetijstvo: uspešna vključitev novih držav članic v SKP) (odstavek 4.2).
33 For Hungary see for example Udovecz, G., Popp, J., Potori, N., Hungarian Agriculture under pressure for adjustment, Budapest, 2007. 
33 Za Madžarsko glej npr. Udovecz, G., Popp, J., Potori, N., Alkalmazkodási kényszerben a magyar mezőgazdaság (madžarsko kmetijstvo pod pritiskom prilagajanja), Budimpešta, 2007.
In 2009 the results of the 2007 analysis were confirmed (Strategic dilemmas of Hungarian Agriculture and its chances on the market, Budapest, 2009) and point to existing structural problems and weak competitiveness of the Hungarian agricultural sector. 
Leta 2009 so bili rezultati analize iz leta 2007 potrjeni (A magyar agrárgazdaság versenyesélyei és stratégiai dilemmái (strateške dileme madžarskega kmetijstva in njegove možnosti na trgu), Budimpešta, 2009). Kažejo na obstoječe strukturne probleme in slabo konkurenčnost madžarskega kmetijskega sektorja.
For Slovakia see Božik, M. et al., Economics of sustainable development in agriculture, food sector and rural areas in Slovak Republic, Bratislava, 2009. 
Za Slovaško glej Božik, M. et al., Economics of sustainable development in agriculture, food sector and rural areas in Slovak Republic (ekonomija trajnostnega razvoja kmetijstva, hrane in podeželskih območij v Republiki Slovaški), Bratislava, 2009.
In Romania, where detailed evaluations of the situation of agriculture are not available, the national authorities mentioned fragmented land ownership which makes it difficult to merge parcels to larger production units and structural problems in the food chain, for example underdeveloped facilities for food processing or food traders relying less and less on domestic produce, as factors making it difficult for many farmers to realise a higher income from agricultural activities. 
V Romuniji, kjer podrobno vrednotenje stanja kmetijstva ni na voljo, so nacionalni organi kot dejavnike, zaradi katerih mnogi kmetje težko ustvarijo višje dohodke s kmetijskimi dejavnostmi, navedli razdrobljeno lastništvo zemljišč, ki otežuje združevanje parcel v večje proizvodne enote, in strukturne probleme v prehranski verigi, npr. premalo razvite obrate za predelavo hrane ali vse manjše zanašanje trgovcev s hrano na domače proizvode.
Large areas of agricultural land are leased in Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and, in some regions, in Poland and Romania35. The Commission has not yet specifically assessed the impact which the introduction of SAPS had on land or land lease prices in the new Member States. 
V Bolgariji, na Madžarskem, Slovaškem in v nekaterih regijah na Poljskem in v Romuniji so zakupljene velike površine kmetijskih zemljišč.35 Komisija še ni posebej ocenila učinka uvedbe SEPP na cene ali zakupnine zemljišč v novih državah članicah.
Available studies indicate however a statistically significant impact of SAPS payments on land rents36, even though the agricultural land markets are not yet fully functioning in all new Member States. 
Razpoložljive študije pa kažejo statistično pomemben učinek plačil iz SEPP na zakupnine zemljišč,36 čeprav trg s kmetijskimi zemljišči v vseh novih državah članicah še ne deluje v celoti.
35 In Slovakia, in 2009, 82 % of the UAA was leased in contrast to Romania where the latest available figures (2007) show this rate to be only 17 %. 
Celotni učinek plačil iz SEPP na cene in zakupnine zemljišč zato morda še ni v celoti viden.37 35 Na Slovaškem je bilo leta 2009 zakupljenih 82 % KZU, za Romunijo pa po zadnjih podatkih (iz leta 2007) le 17 %.
36 The Hungarian Research Institute for Agricultural Economics (RIAE) calculated that due to the high rate of leased land, landowners benefit also significantly from the support and absorb 31 % of the aid; Kovacs, G. et al., The efficiency of agricultural subsidies, Budapest, 2008. 
29 36 Madžarski raziskovalni inštitut za agrarno ekonomiko je izračunal, da imajo zaradi visokih zakupnin tudi lastniki zemljišč precejšnjo korist od podpore, saj gre zanje 31% pomoči; Kovács, G. et al., The efficiency of agricultural subsidies (učinkovitost kmetijskih subvencij), Budimpešta, 2008.
This is consistent with another study which covered the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Slovakia; Ciaian, P., Kancs, D., The capitalisation of Area Payments into Farmland Rents: Theory and Evidence from the New EU Member States, Brussels, 2009. 
To je skladno z drugo študijo, ki je zajela Češko, Estonijo, Madžarsko, Litvo, Latvijo, Poljsko in Slovaško; Ciaian, P., Kancs, D., The capitalisation of Area Payments into Farmland Rents: Theory and Evidence from the New EU Member States (kapitalizacija plačil na površino v zakupninah kmetijskih zemljišč: teorija in dokazi iz novih držav članic EU), Bruselj, 2009.
29 BOX 3 IMPACT OF SAPS PAYMENTS ON LEASE CONDITIONS AND PRICES In Poland and Hungary the Court observed a particularly strong increase of lease prices for state owned land of low agricultural value such as marginal grassland. 
OKVIR 3 UČINEK PLAČIL IZ SEPP NA ZAKUPNE POGOJE IN CENE Sodišče je na Poljskem in Madžarskem opazilo posebej veliko zvišanje zakupnin zemljišč v državni lasti z majhno kmetijsko vrednostjo, kot je npr. nekakovostno travinje.
Before 2004 sheep breeders traditionally using this land had paid no or very low lease fees but with the introduction of SAPS demand for such land increased. 
Rejci ovac, ki so običajno uporabljali ta zemljišča, pred letom 2004 zanje niso plačevali nič, ali pa le zelo nizke zakupnine, z uvedbo SEPP pa se je povpraševanje po takih zemljiščih povečalo.
This is not explained by the situation on agricultural markets but by the fact that SAPS payments being proportional to area guarantee a high level of aid in relation to the low productive value of the land. 
Do tega ni prišlo zaradi stanja na kmetijskih trgih, pač pa zato, ker plačila iz SEPP, ki so sorazmerna s površino, zagotavljajo visoko raven pomoči glede na nizko proizvodno vrednost zemljišč.
The authorities started organising public tenders for awarding lease contracts which resulted in significantly higher lease fees that affected all farmers working on this type of land. 
Organi so začeli organizirati javne razpise za sklepanje zakupnih pogodb, zato so se zakupnine precej zvišale, kar je vplivalo na vse kmete, ki uporabljajo tovrstna zemljišča.
In Hungary and Romania, the Court identified lease contracts where the lease was directly expressed as a percentage of SAPS and/or complementary national direct payments and was thus increasing proportionally to the evolution of these payments. 
Sodišče je na Madžarskem in v Romuniji odkrilo zakupne pogodbe, v katerih je bila zakupnina neposredno izražena kot delež plačil iz SEPP in/ali dopolnilnih nacionalnih neposrednih plačil in se je višala sorazmerno z višanjem teh plačil.
Leases can for example provide for payment of a fixed price per hectare plus 100 % of the SAPS amount. 
V zakupnih pogodbah je bilo npr. določeno plačilo fiksne cene na hektar in 100 % zneska SEPP.