natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Poland, the authorities had accurate information in their administrative systems on jobs created, as beneficiaries had to provide evidence of the new jobs as a condition for payment of the grant. 
Na Poljskem so imeli organi v svojih upravnih sistemih natančne informacije o ustvarjenih delovnih mestih, saj so morali upravičenci predložiti dokaze o novih delovnih mestih kot pogoj za plačilo nepovratnih sredstev.
But this information was not used for the CMEF as the authorities used a survey questionnaire to the beneficiaries — an inherently less reliable method, for which no proof was required or checking of reliability done. 
Vendar za CMEF niso uporabili teh informacij, temveč anketni vprašalnik za upravičence, kar je že v osnovi manj zanesljiva metoda, pri uporabi katere niso bila potrebna dokazila in ni bila preverjena zanesljivost.
In the Czech Republic and Hungary, indicator data was also obtained by survey with no checks on data accuracy. 
Tudi na Češkem in na Madžarskem so bili podatki o kazalnikih pridobljeni z anketo, brez preverjanja točnosti podatkov.
The Member States audited tended to see the CMEF data collection as an additional task that was necessary to comply with the regulation, but which was of little value for their own management of the measures, and consequently paid little attention to its quality. 
Revidirane države članice so zbiranje podatkov za CMEF pogosto dojemale kot dodatno nalogo, ki je nujna za skladnost z uredbo, vendar brez velike vrednosti za njihovo lastno upravljanje ukrepov, zato kakovosti zbiranja niso posvečale velike pozornosti.
Reflecting this attitude, several Member States responded to the Court’s findings of weaknesses in their monitoring and evaluation by explaining that they had done what was necessary to comply with the CMEF requirements. 
Zaradi tega odnosa je več držav članic na ugotovitve Sodišča o slabostih pri njihovem spremljanju in vrednotenju pojasnilo, da so storile vse, kar je bilo potrebno za skladnost z zahtevami CMEF.
For example, following the Court’s finding that they had no plans for monitoring or evaluating Leader local development strategies, one Member State replied that it had put in place the CMEF as defined at EU level and if this did not cover Leader, it was not the fault of the Member State. 
Na primer ena od držav članic je na ugotovitev Sodišča, da nima načrtov za spremljanje in vrednotenje lokalnih razvojnih strategij Leader, odgovorila, da je vzpostavila CMEF, kot je določeno na ravni EU, in da ni njena krivda, če to ne zajema programa Leader.
As a consequence of the weaknesses described above, the Court has found in its recent audits that the CMEF results data frequently does not correspond to the real situation. 
Sodišče je pri svojih nedavnih revizijah ugotovilo, da se zaradi slabosti, opisanih zgoraj, podatki o rezultatih CMEF pogosto ne skladajo z resničnim stanjem.
Discrepancies stem from misunderstandings of what information is required and the difficulty of predicting at the time of the aid application results such as ‘gross value added’, which depend on many factors, including the state of the economy. 
Razlike izvirajo iz nerazumevanja, katere informacije so potrebne, in dejstva, da je ob vložitvi zahtevkov za pomoč težko napovedati rezultate, kot je „bruto dodana vrednost“, ki je odvisna od mnogih dejavnikov, tudi stanja gospodarstva.
In some cases, the design of the measure created incentives for the applicants to exaggerate the likely results, such as the number of jobs to be created, to increase their chances of obtaining a grant. 21 Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
V nekaterih primerih so bili ukrepi zasnovani tako, da so vlagatelje zahtevkov spodbujali k pretiravanju pri verjetnih rezultatih, na primer pri številu ustvarjenih delovnih mest, da bi povečali svoje možnosti za pridobitev nepovratnih sredstev. 21 Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
The common result indicators, in particular, left too much room for interpretation, data was costly or difficult to collect and some indicators were of limited value, as they did not show the results of the measures, as illustrated in Box 1. 
Zlasti pri skupnih kazalnikih rezultatov je ostalo preveč možnosti za različno tolmačenje, zbiranje podatkov je bilo drago ali težavno, uporabna vrednost nekaterih kazalnikov pa zanemarljiva, saj niso prikazovali rezultatov ukrepov, kot je opisano v okviru 1.
On top of this, as shown in paragraph 32, the common indicators were not always relevant enough or sufficient to show whether the RDP objectives were met. 
Skupni kazalniki prav tako niso bili zmeraj dovolj relevantni ali zadostni, da bi prikazali, ali so bili cilji programa razvoja podeželja doseženi, kot je opisano v odstavku 32.
THE MID‐TERM EVALUATIONS DID NOT GIVE SUFFICIENTLY EVIDENCE‐BASED CONCLUSIONS ON THE EFFECTS OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT MEASURES 43. 
ZAKLJUČKI VMESNIH VREDNOTENJ O UČINKIH UKREPOV ZA RAZVOJ PODEŽELJA NISO BILI DOVOLJ PODPRTI Z DOKAZI 43.
The Member States’ weaknesses in monitoring results contributed to the generally unsatisfactory quality of the mid-term evaluations. 
Slabosti držav članic pri spremljanju rezultatov so prispevale k splošno nezadovoljivi kakovosti vmesnih vrednotenj.
The regulation requires mid-term evaluations to examine not only the degree of utilisation of resources but also the effectiveness and efficiency of the programming of the EU budget, the socioeconomic impact and the impact on the Community priorities. 
V skladu z uredbo se pri vmesnem vrednotenju ne pregleda samo stopnja uporabe sredstev, pač pa tudi uspešnost in učinkovitost programiranja proračunskih sredstev EU, njihov socialno-ekonomski vpliv in vpliv na prednostne naloge Skupnosti.
For the mid-term evaluations, which were undertaken in 2010, many evaluators simply did not have information available on which to base their evaluation, whether because measures had not been running long enough to generate results, or because the Member States had not collected relevant and reliable data. 
Pri vmesnih vrednotenjih, izvedenih leta 2010, mnogi izvajalci vrednotenja preprosto niso imeli na voljo informacij, na katerih bi temeljilo njihovo vrednotenje, ker se ukrepi še niso izvajali dovolj dolgo, da bi prinesli rezultate, ali ker država članica ni zbrala relevantnih in zanesljivih podatkov.
The mid-term evaluations focused on financial and output data, with many producing useful analyses of implementation and of weaknesses in the monitoring data. 
Vmesna vrednotenja so se osredotočala na finančne podatke in podatke o izložkih, mnoga so prikazala koristne analize izvajanja in slabosti podatkov o spremljanju.
However, they rarely provided useful information on the achievement of objectives or efficiency. 
Le redko pa so zagotovila koristne informacije o doseganju ciljev ali učinkovitosti.
22 BOX 1 EXAMPLES OF DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED WITH RESULT INDICATORS The Commission did not issue guidance on what should be considered as a ‘new product or new technique’ in relation to the measure for modernising farms. 
22 OKVIR 1 PRIMERI TEŽAV S KAZALNIKI REZULTATOV Komisija ni izdala smernic o tem, kaj pri ukrepih za posodabljanje kmetij velja kot „nov proizvod ali nova teh-nika“.
The Romanian data indicates that 98 % of the investments resulted in a new product or technique, compared with 13 % in Poland and 35 % in Hungary. 
Podatki iz Romunije kažejo, da je 98 % naložb ustvarilo nov proizvod ali tehniko, v primerjavi s 13 % na Poljskem in 35 % na Madžarskem.
Such a large difference cannot be explained by differences in the measures as they covered a similar range of investments. 
Tako velike razlike ni mogoče pojasniti z razlikami v ukrepih, saj so ti zajemali podoben obseg naložb.
Almost any investment in new farm buildings, machinery or equipment met the Romanian definition for the indicator. 
Skoraj vsaka naložba v nove kmetijske zgradbe, stroje ali opremo je ustrezala romunski opredelitvi za ta kazalnik.
The result indicator ‘area under successful land management’ is in practice identical to the output indicator ‘area under agri-environment support’. This is because Member States consider all areas supported to be ‘success-ful’ without any assessment of whether an improvement of biodiversity, water quality, etc. was achieved. 
Kazalnik rezultata „ površina, s katero se uspešno upravlja“ je v praksi enak kazalniku izložkov „površina, za katero se prejema kmetijsko-okoljska podpora«, saj države članice vse površine s podporo štejejo za „uspešne“, brez kakršne koli ocene, ali je bilo doseženo izboljšanje biotske raznovrstnosti, kakovosti vode itd. Sodišče je odkrilo primere, pri katerih kmetijsko-okoljske pogodbe niso bile uspešne, vendar je bila površina kljub temu zajeto med podatke o rezultatih.
In many cases, the mid-term evaluations relied on inadequate methodologies, such as making assumptions or relying on surveys without undertaking other procedures or evidence collection to support the conclusions10. 
Vmesna vrednotenja so v mnogih primerih temeljila na neprimernih metodologijah, na primer na predpostavljanju ali zanašanju na ankete, ne da bi se izvedli drugi postopki ali zbrali dokazi za utemeljitev zaključkov10.
While case studies can be valuable to illustrate findings or help explain data, some evaluators used just a handful of cases to draw conclusions for a whole measure or programme. 
Čeprav so študije primera lahko koristne za prikaz ugotovitev ali kot pomoč za razlago podatkov, pa so nekateri izvajalci vrednotenja na podlagi majhnega števila primerov oblikovali zaključke za celoten ukrep ali program.
Some mid-term evaluations made no attempt to answer the common evaluation questions established in the Commission CMEF guidance11. 
Pri nekaterih vmesnih vrednotenjih niso niti poskušali odgovoriti na skupna vprašanja za vrednotenje, kot so bila določena v napotkih Komisije za CMEF11.
In France, all Axis 3 and Axis 4 measures were excluded from the scope of the mid-term evaluation. 
V Franciji vmesno vrednotenje ni zajelo nobenega od ukrepov osi 3 in 4.
The mid-term evaluations consequently failed to give sufficiently evidence-based answers to the evaluation questions that concerned efficiency and the achievement of objectives, and they were too disparate to give meaningful information at EU level. 
Vmesna vrednotenja zato niso zagotovila odgovorov na vprašanja za vrednotenje o učinkovitosti in doseganju ciljev, ki bi bili dovolj podprti z dokazi, bila pa so tudi preveč raznolika, da bi dala smiselne informacije na ravni EU.
THE COMMISSION HAS ENCOURAGED MEMBER STATES TO IMPROVE MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND THERE IS USEFUL INFORMATION ON WHAT THE EU’S BUDGET IS SPENT ON ... 
KOMISIJA JE DRŽAVE ČLANICE POZVALA K IZBOLJŠANJU SPREMLJANJA IN VREDNOTENJA IN NA VOLJO SO KORISTNE INFORMACIJE O TEM, ZA KAJ SE PRORAČUNSKA SREDSTVA EU PORABIJO...
The Commission recognised the problems with the indicators and the evaluations from an early stage, worked with the Member States to improve the guidance and offered support, notably through an ‘Evaluation Helpdesk’. 
Komisija je težave s kazalniki in vrednotenjem zaznala zgodaj. Sodelovala je z državami članicami, da bi izboljšala napotke, ter nudila pomoč, zlasti s službo za pomoč uporabnikom pri vrednotenju.
Following the mid-term evaluations, the Commission analysed the weaknesses and has used the experience gained when planning the CMEF for the 2014–20 period. 
Po vmesnih vrednotenjih je Komisija analizirala slabosti in pridobljene izkušnje uporabila pri načrtovanju CMEF za obdobje 2014–2020.
The Commission checks the Member States’ monitoring data (which is submitted with the Annual Progress Reports) and requires Member States to correct obvious errors before it will accept the Annual Progress Reports as complying with the regulation. 
Komisija preveri podatke držav članic o spremljanju (ki se predložijo z letnimi poročili o napredku) in od njih zahteva, da popravijo očitne napake, preden potrdi, da so letna poročila o napredku skladna z uredbo.
The consistency and completeness of the data have much improved over the past 5 years, but at the time of the audit in April 2013, the Commission had still not accepted the Annual Progress Reports for 2011 for France, Hungary and England, so the latest information is for 2010. 
Doslednost in popolnost podatkov sta se v preteklih petih letih zelo izboljšali, vendar v času revizije aprila 2013 Komisija še vedno ni potrdila letnih poročil o napredku za leto 2011 za Francijo, Madžarsko in Anglijo, tako da se zadnje informacije nanašajo na leto 2010.
However, there are limits to what the Commission can do if Member States do not provide the data. 
Kljub temu ima Komisija omejene možnosti ukrepanja, če države članice ne predložijo podatkov.
Hungary has not provided indicator data for 2011 with the explanation that it is still revising its indicators. 
Madžarska ni predložila podatkov o kazalnikih za leto 2011 z obrazložitvijo, da še vedno pregleduje svoje kazalnike.
Important data is also still missing for other Member States, including Romania, which has not reported any result indicator data for the six measures reviewed. 
Pomembni podatki še vedno manjkajo tudi za druge države članice, med drugim za Romunijo, ki za šest ukrepov, ki so bili pregledani, ni sporočila nobenih podatkov o kazalnikih rezultatov.
Of the 12 RDPs reviewed, only Austria and Sweden have provided the full set of common result indicator data for 2011. 
Od 12 pregledanih programov razvoja podeželja sta popoln sklop podatkov o skupnih kazalnikih rezultatov za leto 2011 predložili le Avstrija in Švedska.
The Annex shows the data provided by the Member States in their Annual Progress Reports for 2011. 
V Prilogi so prikazani podatki, ki so jih v svojih letnih poročilih o napredku za leto 2011 navedle države članice.
The lack of up-to-date data means it is of little use for its intended purpose of monitoring the outputs and results. 
Ker manjkajo najnovejši podatki, tabela ni zelo uporabna za svoj načrtovani namen spremljanja izložkov in rezultatov.
10 See paragraphs 75 to 77 of Special Report No 1/2013 Has the EU support to the food-processing industry been effective and efficient in adding value to agricultural products? (http://eca.europa.eu). 
10 Glej odstavke od 75 do 77 Posebnega poročila 1/2013 – Ali je podpora EU živilskopredelovalni industriji uspešno in učinkovito dodala vrednost kmetijskih proizvodom? (http://eca.europa.eu).
11 In its audit of the measure for adding value to agricultural products, the Court found that eight of the 23 mid-term evaluation reports reviewed gave no conclusions on the evaluation question ‘To what extent have supported investments contributed to improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector?’ despite this being the EU objective for which the aid is given. 23 Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
11 Pri reviziji ukrepa za dodajanje vrednosti kmetijskim proizvodom je Sodišče ugotovilo, da v osmih od 23 poročil o vmesnem vrednotenju, ki jih je pregledalo, ni bilo zaključkov o vprašanju za vrednotenje„Koliko so podprte naložbe prispevale k izboljšanju konkurenčnosti kmetijskega in gozdarskega sektorja?“, čeprav je to cilj EU, za katerega je bila odobrena pomoč. 23 Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
Even where results data is available, the Commission has little assurance that it is reliable. 
Tudi ko so podatki o rezultatih na voljo, Komisija nima veliko zagotovila, da so zanesljivi.
Member States do not have to describe the definitions used or data collection methods in the Annual Progress Reports and the Commission has not checked whether Member States have systems to ensure the quality of the data, how each interprets terms like ‘new products’, or which Member States follow the methodological guidance. 
Državam članicam v letnih poročilih o napredku ni treba opisati uporabljenih opredelitev pojmov ali metod zbiranja podatkov, Komisija pa ne preverja, ali imajo države članice vzpostavljene sisteme za zagotavljanje kakovosti podatkov, kako posamezna država tolmači pojme kot so„novi proizvodi“ ali katere države članice upoštevajo metodološke napotke.
The Court found that without explicitly informing the Commission, Hungary changed the description of the ‘jobs created’ indicator to include ‘jobs maintained’, which would greatly inflate the results. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je Madžarska, ne da bi o tem izrecno obvestila Komisijo, opis kazalnika „ustvarjena delovna mesta“ spremenila tako, da je zajemal tudi„ohranjena delovna mesta“, kar bi znatno napih-nilo rezultate.
For all the problems encountered, the CMEF nevertheless remains an essential tool, without which the possibilities for monitoring and evaluating the EU’s budget would be poorer. 
Kljub vsem težavam ostaja CMEF bistveno orodje, brez katerega bi bile možnosti za spremljanje in vrednotenje proračuna EU manjše.
While the monitoring information in the early years and many of the mid-term evaluations were not of an acceptable quality, the Commission has noted a development of expertise and of an evaluation culture. 
Čeprav informacije o spremljanju v prvih letih in velik delež vmesnih vrednotenj niso bili sprejemljive kakovosti, pa je Komisija opazila napredek pri strokovnem znanju in izkušnjah ter kulturi vrednotenja.
Valuable lessons have been learned, which should lead to a more robust CMEF in the future. 
Pridobljene so bile dragocene izkušnje, ki bi morale omogočiti bolj trden CMEF v prihodnosti.
The Court has noted examples of good practice in monitoring and evaluation, for example in Austria, Sweden and England for the agri-environment measure (see paragraph 65), which show what can be achieved. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo primere dobre prakse pri spremljanju in vrednotenju, na primer pri kmetijsko-okoljskem ukrepu (glej odstavek 65) v Avstriji, na Švedskem in v Angliji, ki kažejo, kaj je mogoče doseči.
For the output indicators, the CMEF data is relatively consistent and complete and can provide useful information on what the EU’s budget is spent on. 
Pri kazalnikih izložkov so podatki CMEF relativno dosledni in popolni in lahko zagotovijo koristne informacije o tem, za kaj se porabijo proračunska sredstva EU.
Regarding the results achieved, however, the monitoring and evaluation has not yet delivered sufficiently relevant, accurate, consistent and comparable information. ... 
Glede doseženih rezultatov pa spremljanje in vrednotenje še ni dalo dovolj relevantnih, natančnih, doslednih in primerljivih informacij. ...
BUT THERE HAS BEEN INSUFFICIENT REPORTING OF THE RESULTS ACHIEVED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EU’S BUDGET HAS BEEN SPENT WELL 51. 
VENDAR POROČANJE O DOSEŽENIH REZULTATIH NI ZADOSTNO, DA BI SE LAHKO DOKAZALO, DA JE BIL PRORAČUN EU DOBRO PORABLJEN 51.
The regulations require the Member States and Commission to report periodically on the implementation of the budget and the achievement of rural development objectives. 
V skladu z uredbami morajo države članice in Komisija periodično poročati o izvrševanju proračuna in dosežkih v zvezi s cilji razvoja podeželja.
Table 3 provides an overview of the reports produced by the Member States and Commission that concern the efficiency and effectiveness of the rural development expenditure. 24 Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Tabela 3 prikazuje pregled poročil držav članic in Komisije o učinkovitosti in uspešnosti odhodkov za razvoj podeželja. 24 Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
TABLE 3 REPORTING ON THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE 25 Report Purpose of the report Comments Member States Annual Progress Report for each RDP (Article 82 of Regulation(EC)1698/2005) To show the financial implementation of the programme; the progress of the programme in relation to the objectives set; the steps taken to ensure the quality and effectiveness of programme implementation The reports present the common indicators, describe the physical and financial implementation of the programme and give some information on evaluation activities. 
TABELA 3 POROČANJE O UČINKOVITOSTI IN USPEŠNOSTI ODHODKOV ZA RAZVOJ PODEŽELJA 25 Poročilo Namen poročila Pripombe Države članice Letno poročilo o napredku za vsak program razvoja podeželja (člen 82 Uredbe (ES) št.
Strategic Monitoring – Sum‐ mary report (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) 1698/2005) To show the progress made in implementing the national strategy plan and objectives and the contribution to the achievement of the Community strategic guidelines The reports have similar content to the Annual Progress Reports. 
Strateško spremljanje – zbirna poročila (člen 13 Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005) Prikazati napredek pri izvajanju nacionalne‐ ga strateškega načrta in doseganju ciljev ter prispevek k izpolnjevanju strateških smernic Skupnosti.
Commission Report on the evaluation of the Union’s finances COM(2012) 40 final COM(2012) 675 final To provide the European Parliament and Council with evidence of the results achieved (NB: not only for the rural development policy) The reports present the evaluations that were undertaken in the year. 
Vsebina poročil je podobna kot v letnih poročilih o napredku. Komisija Poročilo o oceni financ Unije COM(2012) 40 final COM(2012) 675 final Predložiti dokaze o doseženih rezultatih Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu.
Rural development was not covered as there were no EU‐level evaluations published. 
Razvoj podeželja ni bil zajet, saj ni bilo objavljenih vrednotenj na ravni EU.
The Court has commented on these reports in Court Opinion 04/2012 and in a presiden‐ tial letter available at: http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/ docs/1/19934783.PDF Summary report on the im‐ plementation of the national strategies (COM(2011) 450 final At the time of the audit (April 2013) the Summary Report due at the start of 2013 had not been published by the Commission A summary of the main current developments, trends and challenges relating to the imple‐ mentation of the national strategy plans and the Community strategic guidelines, including the measures taken to follow up the report’s conclusions The report presents data on financial and physical implemen‐ tation aggregated from the Member States’ Annual Progress Reports with just a few of the results indicators included. 
Sodišče je svoje pripombe o teh poročilih izrazilo v Mnenju Sodišča št. 4/2012 in v pismu predsednika, ki je na voljo na http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/ docs/1/19934804.PDF Zbirno poročilo o izvajanju nacionalnih strategij COM(2011) 450 final Do revizije (april 2013) Komisija še ni objavila zbirnega poročila z rokom objave v začetku leta 2013.
There is no analysis of whether the achievement of results is satisfactory or of the costs involved. 
Ne vsebuje analize zadovoljivosti doseženih rezultatov ali zadevnih stroškov.
Annual Activity Report, Directorate‐General for Agriculture and Rural Development To show results of DG Agriculture and Rural Development ’s operations in relation to the objectives set The reports present impact indicators to show achievement of the Commission’s objectives (which differ in some respects from those of the rural development regulation). 
Letno poročilo o dejavnostih, Generalni direktorat za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja Prikazati rezultate dejavnosti Generalnega direktorata za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeže‐ lja v zvezi z zastavljenimi cilji. V poročilih so predstavljeni kazalniki vpliva za prikaz doseganja ciljev Komisije (ki se v nekaterih pogledih razlikujejo od tistih, ki so določeni v uredbi o razvoju podeželja).