natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See Article 57 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 
1083/2006 z dne 11. julija 2006 o splošnih določbah o Evropskem skladu za regionalni razvoj, Evropskem socialnem skladu in Kohezijskem skladu (UL L 210, 31.7.2006, str.
Regulation (EU) No 539/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 158, 24.6.2010, p. 
Uredba (ES) št. 539/2010 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. junija 2010 o spremembi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
Article 71 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 
1303/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. decembra 2013 o skupnih določbah o Evropskem skladu za regionalni razvoj, Evropskem socialnem skladu, Kohezijskem skladu, Evropskem kmetijskem skladu za razvoj podeželja in Evropskem skladu za pomorstvo in ribištvo, o splošnih določbah o Evropskem skladu za regionalni razvoj, Evropskem socialnem skladu, Kohezijskem skladu in Evropskem skladu za pomorstvo in ribištvo (UL L 347, 20.12.2013, str.
In the first part of this report, we analyse the durability of outputs and, in the second part, the durability of results (direct and indirect). 
V prvem delu tega poročila je analizirana trajnost izložkov, v drugem delu pa trajnost rezultatov (neposrednih in posrednih).
We assessed durability at the end of the legal durability period and at the time of the audit. 
Ocenili smo trajnost ob koncu zakonskega obdobja trajnosti in v času revizije.
In part three, we identify the main reasons why productive investments lacked durability, as well as good practice we encountered in our audit. 
V tretjem delu opredelimo glavne razloge, zakaj so bile produktivne naložbe premalo trajne, ter dobre prakse, ki smo jih odkrili pri reviziji.
In this respect, we examined the roles of the responsible authorities in the Member States and of the Commission. This included reviewing the OPs underlying the projects audited, as well as reviewing project monitoring, reporting and evaluation. 
V zvezi s tem smo preučili vlogo pristojnih organov v državah članicah in Komisije: pregledali smo operativne programe, povezane z revidiranimi projekti, ter spremljanje in ocenjevanje projektov ter poročanje o njih.
In the last part, we analyse potential improvements regarding durability in the 2014-2020 programme period. 
V zadnjem delu je analiza potencialnih izboljšav v zvezi s trajnostjo v programskem obdobju 2014–2020.
We also examine changes made in the 2014-2020 ESIF regulations in order to increase the potential for durability of results. 
Opisana je tudi preučitev sprememb v uredbah o skladih ESI za obdobje 2014–2020, s katerimi naj bi se povečale možnosti za trajnost rezultatov.
We examined 41 completed productive investment projects co-financed by the ERDF under eight OPs in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Poland implemented between 2000 and 2013 with a durability period ending between 2006 and 2018. 
Preučili smo 41 zaključenih projektov produktivnih naložb, ki so bili sofinancirani iz ESRR v okviru osmih operativnih programov v Avstriji, Češki republiki, Nemčiji, Italiji in na Poljskem in izvedeni v obdobju 2000–2013 in katerih obdobje trajnosti se konča med letoma 2006 in 2018.
All projects had previously been audited by us in the context of the Statement of Assurance for compliance with regulatory requirements. 
Vse projekte smo že predhodno revidirali v okviru izdaje izjave o zanesljivosti v zvezi s skladnostjo z regulativnimi zahtevami.
They were selected based on the sample size drawn under the previous audit in the Member States concerned and on their financial size. 
Izbrani so bili na podlagi velikosti vzorca, ki je bil oblikovan za preteklo revizijo v zadevnih državah članicah, in na podlagi finančnega obsega projektov.
Most projects corresponded to investments in assets for enterprises from different manufacturing sectors (e.g. steel or stone products, car parts, sanitary equipment, industrial applications), from the energy sector (coal, renewables) and from the tourism sector (hotels). 
Pri večini projektov je šlo za naložbe v sredstva za podjetja iz različnih proizvodnih sektorjev (npr. jekleni ali kamniti proizvodi, avtomobilski deli, sanitarna oprema, industrijski procesi), energetskega sektorja (premog, obnovljivi viri energije) in turističnega sektorja (hotelirstvo).
Some of them involved R&D investments. 
Nekateri so se nanašali na naložbe v raziskave in razvoj.
The projects ranged in value from 0.1 to 91.7 million euro. 
Vrednost projektov je znašala od 0,1 do 91,7 milijona EUR.
The beneficiaries were usually small to mid-size companies. 
Upravičenci so bili običajno majhna do srednje velika podjetja.
A list of the audited projects and the OPs through which they were financed is presented in Annex III. 
Seznam revidiranih projektov in operativnih programov, v okviru katerih so bili financirani, je v Prilogi III.
OBSERVATIONS The outputs from the audited projects were mostly durable 19. 
OPAŽANJA Izložki revidiranih projektov so bili večinoma trajni 19.
For the projects audited, we first checked that all the expected outputs had been delivered as planned. 
Pri revidiranih projektih je Sodišče najprej preverilo, ali so bili vsi pričakovani izložki doseženi, kakor je bilo načrtovano.
Then we assessed whether they had actually been maintained in their original locations and had not been ceded, either in full or in part, during the legally binding durability period (3 or 5 years), i.e. they could not be sold and the corresponding economic activities could not be relocated inside or outside the EU. 
Nato je ocenilo, ali so bili dejansko ohranjeni na svojih prvotnih lokacijah in ali se v pravno zavezujočem obdobju trajnosti (3 ali 5 let) niso – bodisi v celoti bodisi deloma – prenehali izvajati, t.j. niso smeli biti prodani, pripadajoča gospodarska dejavnost pa ni smela biti preseljena znotraj ali zunaj EU.
We also checked that they had 16 been used on the same production site, except if they were replaced by assets of at least the same market value purchased at the cost of the project beneficiary. 
Sodišče je tudi preverilo, da so se uporabljali v istem proizvodnem obratu, razen če so bili nadomeščeni s sredstvi v vsaj enaki tržni vrednosti, ki jih je na svoje stroške kupil projektni upravičenec.
In all EU regions where the audit took place, the legal durability conditions applied in the OPs were generally in line with the relevant EU regulations13. We did not, in all the audited projects except one, find substantial modifications or changes in the nature of ownership or cessation of the productive activity by the end of the durability period. 
V vseh regijah EU, v katerih je potekala revizija, so bili pogoji glede zakonskega obdobja trajnosti, ki so se uporabljali v okviru operativnih programov, na splošno skladni z ustreznimi predpisi EU.13 V nobenem od revidiranih projektov, razen v enem, nismo ugotovili bistvenih sprememb ali sprememb narave lastništva ali prenehanja proizvodne dejavnosti pred koncem obdobja trajnosti.
In the main, at project completion, the projects examined delivered the expected outputs14. The outputs were, typically, the acquisition of facilities for the manufacturing or production of goods, such as production halls and production lines including machinery and equipment used in different industrial sectors (e.g. in food, chemicals, plastics and metal ware, sanitary equipment, car parts, energy or renewable energy facilities or parts thereof). 
V splošnem so bili s preučenimi projekti ob zaključku doseženi pričakovani izložki.14 Izložki so običajno obsegali pridobitev objektov za proizvodnjo ali izdelavo blaga, kot so proizvodne hale in proizvodne linije, vključno s stroji in opremo, ki se uporabljajo v različnih industrijskih sektorjih (npr. živila, kemikalije, plastika in kovinski izdelki, sanitarna oprema, avtomobilski deli, energetski objekti ali objekti za proizvodnjo energije iz obnovljivih virov ali njihovi deli).
Businesses in the service or tourism sectors also received grants, e.g. support for print shops and refurbishment or construction of hotels. 
Nepovratna sredstva so prejela tudi podjetja v storitvenem in turističnem sektorju, npr. podporo za tiskarne in prenovo ali gradnjo hotelov.
Box 1 illustrates outputs from three of the audited projects, and details for each project can be found in Annex III. 
V okviru 1 so prikazani izložki treh revidiranih projektov, podrobnosti za vsak projekt pa so na voljo v Prilogi III.
17 Box 1 - Examples of project outputs Project 4 (Burgenland/Austria OP) - Purchase of a powder coating system by a SME which manufactures office furniture Total investment cost: 1 million euro. 
18 Okvir 1 – Primeri izložkov projektov Projekt 4 (Gradiščanska / operativni program Avstrije) – nakup sistema za praškasto lakiranje, ki ga je izvedlo MSP za proizvodnjo pisarniškega pohištva Skupni stroški naložbe: 1 milijon EUR.
Grant amount: 0.15 million euro, of which 0.13 million euro from the ERDF. 
Znesek nepovratnih sredstev: 0,15 milijona EUR, od tega 0,13 milijona EUR iz ESRR.
Project implemented from August 2007 to March 2008. 
Projekt se je izvajal od avgusta 2007 do marca 2008.
The main project output was the purchase of laser cutting equipment and a powder coating system to produce high-quality coatings with extremely scratch-, impact-and corrosion-resistant surfaces. 
Glavni izložek projekta je bil nakup opreme za lasersko rezanje in sistema za praškasto lakiranje za proizvodnjo visokokakovostnih premazov, katerih površine so zelo odporne na praske, udarnine in korozijo.
18 Project 20 (Saxony/Germany OP) - Installation of a new production and research and development site for innovative testing and certification of newly developed products in the hydraulics sector by a SME newly created Total investment costs: 6.2 million euro. 
Projekt 20 (Saška / operativni program Nemčije) – Namestitev novega objekta za proizvodnjo ter raziskave in razvoj, namenjenega inovativnemu preizkušanju in certificiranju novorazvitih proizvodov iz hidravličnega sektorja, ki jo je izvedlo novoustanovljeno MSP Skupni stroški naložbe: 6,2 milijona EUR.
Grant amount: 2.8 million euro, of which 1.4 million euro from the ERDF. 
Znesek nepovratnih sredstev: 2,8 milijona EUR, od tega 1,4 milijona EUR iz ESRR.
Project implemented from March 2009 to February 2012. 
Projekt se je izvajal od marca 2009 do februarja 2012.
The project output was the newly established enterprise offering testing, certification and various other services to third companies which intend to develop and sell new high tech products from the hydraulics sector. 
Izložek projekta je bil novoustanovljeno podjetje, ki izvaja preizkušanje, certificiranje in različne druge storitve za tretja podjetja, ki nameravajo razviti in prodajati nove visokotehnološke izdelke iz hidravličnega sektorja.
Project 8 (Regional OP Czech Republic) - Revitalisation of a brownfield site and construction of a hotel by a family-owned company in a tourist town Total investment costs: 2.9 million euro. 
Projekt 8 (regionalni operativni program Češke republike) – Ponovna oživitev degradiranega območja in gradnja hotela, ki ju je izvedlo družinsko podjetje v turističnem kraju Skupni stroški naložbe: 2,9 milijona EUR.
Grant amount: 1 million euro of which 0.8 million euro from the ERDF. 
Znesek nepovratnih sredstev: 1 milijon EUR, od tega 0,8 milijona EUR iz ESRR.
Project implemented between July 2008 and September 2009. 
Projekt je bil izveden med julijem 2008 in septembrom 2009.
The project outputs were a new hotel compound with 160 beds, including the certification of the accommodation facilities in the Czech Republic. 
Izložka projekta sta bila nov hotelski kompleks s 160 posteljami in certifikacija nastanitvenih zmogljivosti v Češki republiki.
The construction works included the revitalisation of a brownfield site in a town centre. 
Gradbena dela so obsegala ponovno oživitev degradiranega območja v središču mesta.
In general, at the end of the legal durability period, the assets existed at the production sites. 
V splošnem so bila ob koncu zakonskega obdobja trajnosti sredstva v proizvodnih obratih.
Assets had not been sold and the firms’ economic activities had not been relocated. 
Sredstva niso bila prodana, gospodarske dejavnosti podjetij pa niso bile preseljene.
In most cases, they had been appropriately maintained and used effectively in line with the needs of the enterprises throughout the durability period (see Figure 2). 
V večini primerov so bila sredstva ustrezno vzdrževana in so se uspešno uporabljala v skladu s potrebami podjetij v celotnem obdobju trajanja (glej sliko 2).
There was only one case15 where a facility was not in operation, and this was due to bankruptcy. 
Le v enem primeru15 objekt ni bil v uporabi, in sicer zaradi stečaja.
In three more cases16, the assets (manufacturing equipment, computers, software programmes) were not in full use or the production lines were not operational due to a lack of maintenance by their owners, a failure to consider business developments in the relevant sector or changes in the relevant energy legislation. 
V treh drugih primerih16 se sredstva (proizvodna oprema, računalniki, programska oprema) niso uporabljala v celoti ali pa proizvodna linija ni obratovala, ker je njeni lastniki niso vzdrževali, ker se ni upošteval poslovni razvoj v zadevnem sektorju ali zaradi sprememb ustrezne energetske zakonodaje.
15 16 Project 1. 
Projekt 1.
Projects 20, 27 and 33. 
Projekti 20, 27 in 33.
Figure 2 - Existence and use of project outputs at the end of the durability period and at the time of the audit Source: ECA’s analysis, based on information provided by MAs or beneficiary enterprises. 
Slika 2 – Obstoj in uporaba izložkov projektov ob koncu obdobja trajnosti in v času revizije Vir: analiza Evropskega računskega sodišča na podlagi informacij, ki so jih zagotovili organi upravljanja ali upravičena podjetja.
Also, at the time of our on-the-spot visits, the assets were still in use in 31 projects. 
Ob naših obiskih na kraju samem so se sredstva še vedno uporabljala pri 31 projektih.
In nine cases17, they were either not being used at all, being partially used or had been replaced by other equipment after the end of the legal durability period – which for SMEs was often only three years after project end. 
V devetih primerih17 se bodisi sploh niso uporabljala bodisi so se delno uporabljala ali pa so bila nadomeščena z drugo opremo po koncu zakonskega obdobja trajnosti, ki je za MSP pogosto le tri leta po koncu projekta.
Such entrepreneurial behaviour may have been prompted by valid reasons, such as replacing machinery or IT systems due to wear or depreciation, or having more state-of-the-art equipment with at least the same trade value, or changes in the relevant energy legislation. 
Tako podjetniško ravnanje je morda imelo tehtne razloge, kot so zamenjava strojev ali sistemov IT zaradi obrabe ali amortizacije ali zaradi namestitve sodobnejše opreme z vsaj enako tržno vrednostjo ali zaradi sprememb zadevne energetske zakonodaje.
For example, in one of the projects18, the equipment was replaced right after the end of the legal durability period due to its expensive operating costs. 
Na primer, v enem od projektov18 je bila oprema nadomeščena takoj po koncu zakonskega obdobja trajnosti zaradi dragih operativnih stroškov.
Most of the projects audited created durable results but one fifth did not 24. 
Pri večini revidiranih projektov so bili ustvarjeni trajni rezultati, le pri petini ne 24.
We first checked whether the projects audited had achieved the expected direct results at project completion. 
Sodišče je najprej preverilo, ali so bili pri revidiranih projektih ob njihovem zaključku doseženi pričakovani neposredni rezultati.
We then analysed the situation at the time of the audit to assess whether these results had been maintained by the project owners for as long as possible so as to generate the maximum possible benefits far beyond project end. 
Nato je analiziralo stanje v času revizije, da bi ocenilo, ali so lastniki projektov rezultate ohranili, kakor dolgo je bilo mogoče, da bi tako ustvarili največje možne koristi še dolgo po koncu projektov.
While doing this, we also took into consideration the economic situation of the firms in relation to that of the Projects 1, 10, 14, 20, 26, 27, 32, 33 and 35. 
Merila za ocenjevanje so podrobno pojasnjena v Prilogi IV. Projekti 1, 10, 14, 20, 26, 27, 32, 33 in 35.
The existence of the outputs in one project (25) could not be evaluated at the time of the audit. 
Pri enem projektu (25) v času revizije ni bilo mogoče oceniti, ali izložki obstajajo.
The assets from project 10 were not in use immediately after, project 14 – after one year, project 35 – 3.5 years after end of durability period. 
Sredstva pri projektu 10 niso bila v uporabi takoj po koncu obdobja trajnosti, pri projektu 14 po enem letu, pri projektu 35 pa 3,5 leta po koncu obdobja trajnosti.
19 Existence and use of outputs at the end of the durability period Existence and use of outputs, as at the time of the audit 12 2 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 7 Audited projects good partial poor or ceased to exist not possible to evaluate 31 35 3 17 18 Project 10. 
19 Prisotnost in uporaba izložkov ob koncu obdobja trajnosti 1 2 Prisotnost in uporaba izložkov v času revizije 2 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 Revidirani projekti Dobra Delna Slaba ali ne več obstoječa Ni bilo mogoče oceniti 7 31 35 3 17 18 Projekt 10.
Durability of direct results was good in about half of the projects audited 25. 
Trajnost neposrednih rezultatov je bila dobra pri približno polovici revidiranih projektov 25.
We checked that the projects audited pursued various direct results, such as improving access to finance, increasing production and productivity, creating employment, increasing sales, turnover or exports, diversifying enterprise structures, improving company image, introducing new products or services, and others (e.g. increased cooperation with other institutions in order to enhance innovation and competitiveness) on the basis of the information available at the MAs19. 
Na podlagi informacij, ki so bile na voljo pri organih upravljanja, smo preverili, ali so se z revidiranimi projekti skušali doseči različni neposredni rezultati, kot so izboljšanje dostopa do financiranja, povečanje proizvodnje in produktivnosti, ustvarjanje delovnih mest, povečanje prodaje, prometa ali izvoza, diverzifikacija podjetniških struktur, izboljšanje podobe podjetja, uvajanje novih proizvodov ali storitev in drugi rezultati (npr. okrepljeno sodelovanje z drugimi institucijami zaradi spodbujanja inovacij in konkurenčnosti).19 Na podlagi informacij, zbranih na ravni upravičencev, smo ocenili trajnost neposrednih rezultatov ob koncu obdobja trajnosti in v času revizije (glej sliko 3).
We assessed the durability of direct results at the end of the durability period and at the time of the audit on the basis of the information collected at the beneficiaries (see Figure 3). 
Slika 3 – Trajnost neposrednih rezultatov projektov Vir: analiza Evropskega računskega sodišča na podlagi informacij, ki so jih zagotovili organi upravljanja ali upravičenci projektov.
By the end of the legal durability period (which, for the projects audited, was between 2006 and 201820), and based only on the available monitoring information, results existed in full (and throughout the whole durability period) in 14 projects and partially in seven projects (see Figure 3). 
Do konca zakonskega obdobja trajnosti (ki je bil pri revidiranih projektih med letoma 2006 in 201820) in samo na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij o spremljanju so rezultati obstajali v celoti (in v celotnem obdobju trajnosti) pri 14 projektih, delno pa pri sedmih projektih (glej sliko 3).
However, for nearly half of all projects (19), this assessment was not possible because the MAs had not collected the necessary monitoring data (see also This information might sometimes have been limited due to the fact that our audit took place after the end of the archiving period for these documents. 
Vendar pri skoraj polovici vseh projektov (19) ta ocena ni bila mogoča, ker organ upravljanja ni zbral potrebnih podatkov o spremljanju (glej tudi odstavke 73 do 75) ali ker zadevni dokumenti niso bili več na voljo, saj se je izteklo obvezno obdobje arhiviranja (pri projektih v okviru operativnih programov Apulije in Gradiščanske). Te informacije so bile morda včasih nepopolne, ker je naša revizija potekala po koncu obdobja obveznega arhiviranja teh dokumentov.
Where the end of the durability period was beyond the time of the audit our assessment is based on the information available at the time of the audit only. 
Kadar je konec obdobja trajnosti nastopil po času revizije, naša ocena temelji le na podatkih, ki so bili na voljo v času revizije.
We noted only a few examples where the monitoring allowed for a more thorough collection of data on project results. 
Opazili smo le nekaj primerov, pri katerih je spremljanje omogočilo temeljitejše zbiranje podatkov o rezultatih projektov.
For instance, the MA in charge of the OP in Poland monitored and assessed the achievement of project results using different financial and performance indicators, such as revenues, the value of goods produced as a result of the project, reduction of emissions, etc21. Also, for six other projects in Saxony and Lower Saxony22, the increases in turnover beyond the region and in exports were measured. 
Na primer, organ upravljanja, odgovoren za operativni program na Poljskem, je spremljal in ocenjeval doseganje rezultatov pri projektih z uporabo različnih finančnih kazalnikov in kazalnikov smotrnosti, kot so prihodki, vrednost blaga, proizvedenega zaradi projekta, znižanje emisij itd.21 Pri šestih drugih projektih v deželah Saška in Spodnja Saška22 sta bila preučena tudi povečanje prometa zunaj regije in povečanje izvoza.
However, as most MAs focused solely on job creation (one of the main goals for the OPs), they did not collect information about other relevant (economic) benefits which might have been delivered by the projects. 
Ker pa se je večina organov upravljanja osredotočala zgolj na ustvarjanje novih delovnih mest (ki je eden glavnih ciljev operativnih programov), ti niso zbirali informacij o drugih relevantnih (ekonomskih) koristih, ki bi se s projekti lahko bile dosegle.
Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the actual achievements of a project and their durability was not always feasible based on the monitoring information alone. 
Zato celovita ocena dejanskih dosežkov projekta in njihove trajnosti ni bila vedno izvedljiva samo na podlagi informacij o spremljanju.
At the time of our on-the-spot visits, and also based on additional information provided by beneficiaries and MAs, we found that the direct results were durable in 21 projects, only partially durable in 11 and poor or not durable at all in eight projects23 (details are included in Annex III). 
Med našimi obiski na kraju samem in tudi na podlagi dodatnih informacij, ki so nam jih predložili upravičenci in organi upravljanja, smo ugotovili, da so bili neposredni rezultati trajni pri 21 projektih, le deloma trajni pri 11 in slabi ali sploh ne trajni pri osmih projektih23 (podrobnosti so v Prilogi III).