natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission issued guidance in March 2014 encouraging Member States to ensure that eligibility and selection criteria are applied in a transparent and consistent way throughout the programming period, that selection criteria are applied even in cases when the budget available is sufficient to fund all eligible projects and that projects with a total score that is below a certain threshold are excluded from support. 
Komisija je marca 2014 izdala navodila, v katerih spodbuja države članice, naj zagotovijo, da se merila za upravičenost in izbirna merila v celotnem programskem obdobju uporabljajo pregledno in dosledno, da se izbirna merila uporabljajo tudi, ko je na voljo dovolj proračunskih sredstev za financiranje vseh upravičenih projektov, in da se projektom s številom točk pod določenim pragom podpora ne dodeli.
31 Following its audit findings, the Commission may launch procedures whereby EU funding for the Member State concerned is reduced to compensate for the shortcomings identified. 
31 Komisija lahko na podlagi svojih revizijskih ugotovitev ukrepa tako, da uvede postopke, s katerimi se sredstva EU za zadevno državo članico zmanjšajo, da se izravnajo ugotovljene pomanjkljivosti.
These procedures are referred to as ‘financial corrections’. 
Ti postopki se imenujejo finančni popravki.
Observations 36 70 On public procurement, at the end of 2014 the Commission developed guidelines on how to avoid common errors in EU co-funded projects32. 
Opažanja 36 70 Na področju javnega naročanja je Komisija konec leta 2014 pripravila smernice za izogibanje pogostim napakam pri projektih, ki jih sofinancira EU32.
In this document, the Commission criticises the use of the ‘average pric-ing’ method, whereby tenders close to the average for all tenders receive more points than tenders deviating from the average, as this methodology ‘represents unequal treatment of tenderers, particularly those with valid low tenders’. 
V tem dokumentu Komisija kritizira uporabo metode na podlagi povprečne cene, pri kateri prejmejo ponudbe, ki so blizu povprečju vseh ponudb, več točk kot ponudbe, ki odstopajo od povprečja, saj ta metodologija neenako obravnava ponudnike, zlasti tiste z veljavnimi nizkimi ponudbami.
Further guidance is given on topics such as the selection of the appropriate public procurement procedure, time limits and selection and award criteria. 
Nadaljnja navodila obravnavajo teme, kot so izbira ustreznega postopka javnega naročanja, roki ter izbirna merila in merila za oddajo naročila.
Nevertheless, at the time of the audit, the ex ante conditionality33 related to public procurement had not been fulfilled by Romania and it had only been partially fulfilled by Italy (Sicily) and Poland. 
Kljub temu pa v času revizije predhodne pogo-jenosti33 v zvezi z javnimi naročili ni spoštovala Romunija, Italija (Sicilija) in Poljska pa sta jo izpolnjevali le delno.
The non-fulfilment of this ex ante conditionality by the end of 2016 may lead to a suspension of payments to Member States, as the Court has recently recommended34. 
Kot je nedavno priporočilo Sodišče34, se lahko državam članicam začasno ukinejo plačila, če omenjene predhodne pogojenosti ne bodo upoštevale do konca leta 2016.
71 The Commission organised a series of workshops on the topic of reasonableness of costs and simplified cost options in 2014-2015. 
71 Komisija je v obdobju 2014–2015 organizirala sklop delavnic na temo razumnosti stroškov in poenostavljenega obračunavanja stroškov.
However, the issue of setting and using reference prices (see paragraph 51) was not addressed in the guidance documents discussed during these workshops. 
Vendar pa vprašanje določitve in uporabe referenčnih cen (glej odstavek 51) v dokumentih z navodili, o katerih se je razpravljalo na teh delavnicah, ni bilo obravnavano.
72 The Commission has not taken any specific action with regard to Member States’ project sustainability requirements and checks. 
72 Komisija ni sprejela nobenih posebnih ukrepov v zvezi z zahtevami in pregledi držav članic na področju trajnosti projektov.
Part III — The monitoring and evaluation system did not produce adequate information on project results 73 Performance information on the effectiveness and efficiency of rural development spending is needed to demonstrate what has been achieved with the EU budget and to show that it has been spent well (accountability). 
Del III – Sistem za spremljanje in vrednotenje ni zagotovil ustreznih informacij o rezultatih projektov 73 Informacije o smotrnosti v zvezi z uspešnostjo in učinkovitostjo porabe na področju razvoja podeželja so potrebne, da se prikaže, kaj je bilo s proračunskimi sredstvi EU doseženo in da so bila ta sredstva dobro porabljena (odgovornost).
Furthermore, it is used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the EU budget by guiding ongoing management of the measures, pointing to possible improvements and helping to shape future policy, for example by revealing the types of investment that performed well. 
Poleg tega se uporabljajo za izboljšanje učinkovitosti in uspešnosti proračuna EU, saj usmerjajo tekoče vodenje ukrepov, opozarjajo na možne izboljšave in pripomorejo pri oblikovanju prihodnjih politik, na primer tako, da prikažejo, pri katerih vrstah naložb je bilo poslovanje smotrno.
74 In order to show what has been achieved with the EU budget spent on rural infrastructure measures, Member States should collect data on the outputs and results achieved by projects. 
74 Da bi bilo mogoče pokazati, kaj je bilo doseženo s proračunom EU, porabljenim za ukrepe za podeželsko infrastrukturo, bi morale države članice zbirati podatke o izložkih in rezultatih projektov.
Under the common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF), Member States must collect information for at least the following output and result indicators (see Table). 
V skladu s skupnim okvirom spremljanja in vrednotenja (CMEF) morajo države članice zbirati informacije vsaj o naslednjih skupnih kazalnikih izložkov in rezultatov (glej tabelo).
33 Ex ante conditionalities have been introduced by Articles 2 and 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as prerequisites for the effective and efficient achievement of specific objectives for Union priorities. 
33 Predhodne pogojenosti so bile uvedene s členoma 2 in 19 Uredbe (EU) št. 1303/2013 kot predpogoji za uspešno in učinkovito doseganje specifičnih ciljev v okviru prioritet Unije.
The ex ante conditionality on public procurement refers to ’the existence of arrangements for the effective application of Union public procurement law in the field of the European Structural Investment Funds’. 
Predhodna pogojenost v zvezi z javnimi naročili se nanaša na „obstoj ureditve za učinkovito uporabo zakonodaje Unije o javnih naročilih na področju evropskih strukturnih in investicijskih skladov”.
34 ECA Special Report No 10/2015 ‘Efforts to address problems with public procurement in EU cohesion expenditure should be intensified’, recommendation No 2 (http://eca.europa. eu). 
10/2015 – Prizadevanja za reševanje problemov pri javnem naročanju na področju odhodkov EU za kohezijo bi bilo treba povečati, priporočilo 2 (http://eca.europa.eu).
Observations 37 Overview of the compulsory output and result indicators under the CMEF for the 2007-2013 programming period1 Code Measure Output indicators Result indicators 125 Infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry — Number of operations supported — Total volume of investments Increase in gross value added (GVA) in supported holdings/enterprises 321 Basic services for the economy and rural population — Number of actions supported — Total volume of investments Population in rural areas benefiting from improved services 322 Village renewal and development — Number of villages where actions took place — Total volume of investments 323 Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage — Number of rural heritage actions supported — Total volume of investments 1 As regards rural development policy, the CMEF will be replaced in the 2014-2020 period by the ‘Common monitoring and evaluation system (CMES)’. 
Opažanja 37 Pregled obveznih kazalnikov izložkov in rezultatov v okviru CMEF za programsko obdobje 2007–20131 Šifra Ukrep Kazalniki izložkov Kazalniki rezultatov 125 infrastruktura, povezana z razvojem in prilagoditvijo kmetijstva in gozdarstva – število dejavnosti, ki so prejele podporo – celotni obseg naložb zvišanje bruto dodane vrednosti pri podprtih gospodarstvih/podjetjih 321 osnovne storitve za gospodarstvo in podeželsko prebivalstvo – število dejavnosti, ki so prejele podporo – celotni obseg naložb prebivalstvo na podeželju, ki ima koristi od izboljšanih storitev 322 obnova in razvoj vasi – število vasi, kjer so bili izvedeni ukrepi – celotni obseg naložb 323 ohranjanje in izboljševanje dediščine podeželja – število ukrepov v zvezi z dediščino podeželja, ki so prejeli podporo – celotni obseg naložb 1 Na področju politike razvoja podeželja bo v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 okvir CMEF nadomestil skupni sistem spremljanja in vrednotenja (CMES).
Details about the new system are provided from paragraph 85 onwards. 
Podrobnosti o novem sistemu so opisane od odstavka 85 naprej.
75 Given the co-financing element, and irrespective of the monitoring and evaluation work required by the CMEF, Member States have a vested interest in project monitoring, as this is an important tool with which to keep track of projects’ progress and to be kept informed as to whether they are achieving the expected results and the RDP objectives. 
75 Države članice imajo zaradi lastnega sofinanciranja, ne glede na spremljanje in vrednotenje, ki ju zahteva CMEF, neposredni interes za spremljanje projektov, saj je to pomembno orodje za spremljanje napredka projektov in pridobivanje informacij o tem, ali dosegajo pričakovane rezultate in cilje iz programov razvoja podeželja.
Monitoring could be carried out by using the administrative and control information available and by periodically collecting relevant information from the beneficiaries35. 
Spremljanje bi se lahko izvajalo z uporabo razpoložljivih upravnih in kontrolnih informacij ter z rednim zbiranjem ustreznih informacij od upravičencev35.
Member States can set additional, programme-specific indicators (within or outside the CMEF system). 
Države članice lahko uvedejo dodatne kazalnike za posamezne programe (v sistemu CMEF ali izven njega).
76 The Court examined the data collection and monitoring systems in the Member States audited and found, as in previous reports36, that there was an absence of relevant and reliable information to draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of these measures. 
76 Sodišče je preučilo sisteme za zbiranje podatkov in spremljanje v državah članicah, kjer je potekala revizija, in tako kot v predhodnih poročilih36 ugotovilo pomanjkanje ustreznih in zanesljivih informacij, iz katerih bi lahko oblikovali zaključek o uspešnosti teh ukrepov.
Therefore, the auditors measured project results and, where applicable, the achievement of the specific project objectives, on the basis of evidence obtained from project visits. 
Zato so revizorji na podlagi dokazov, ki so jih pridobili med obiski projektov, merili rezultate projektov in, če je bilo ustrezno, doseganje specifičnih ciljev projektov.
More information on the audited projects can be found in Annex II. 
Več informacij o revidiranih projektih je v Prilogi II.
35 At least until the expiry of the 5-year period for retaining the assets determined by Article 72 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
35 Vsaj do izteka petletnega obdobja, v katerem je treba ohraniti sredstva, v skladu s členom 72 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005.
36 See Special Reports Nos 8/2012, 1/2013, 6/2013 and 12/2013 (http://eca.europa.eu). 
36 Glej posebna poročila št. 8/2012, 1/2013, 6/2013 in 12/2013 (http://eca.europa.eu).
Table Observations 38 The audited projects delivered the expected physical outputs, but reliable information on project results was often unavailable 77 All 32 audited projects delivered the expected physical outputs (e.g. modernisation of a road, construction of a sewerage system) and 20 of them respected the deadlines indicated in the grant agreement and/or in the contract for works. 
Tabela Opažanja 38 Revidirani projekti so prinesli pričakovane fizične izložke, vendar zanesljive informacije o rezultatih projektov pogosto niso bile na voljo 77 Vseh 32 revidiranih projektov je prineslo pričakovane fizične izložke (npr. posodobitev ceste, izgradnja kanalizacijskega sistema), 20 pa jih je spoštovalo roke, navedene v sporazumu o dodelitvi nepovratnih sredstev in/ali pogodbi za gradnje.
The delays that occurred were in certain cases partially justified by bad weather conditions or other circumstances beyond the beneficiaries’ control. 
Zamude, ki so se pojavile, je bilo v nekaterih primerih mogoče delno upravičiti s slabimi vremenskimi razmerami ali drugimi okoliščinami, nad katerimi upravičenci nimajo vpliva.
78 By achieving the expected outputs, some of the projects also automatically achieved their objectives in terms of results, for example by improving the flood protection of a certain area (see Box 13). 
78 Z doseganjem pričakovanih izložkov so bili pri nekaterih projektih samodejno doseženi tudi njihovi cilji v zvezi z rezultati, na primer izboljšanje protipoplavne zaščite na določenem območju (glej okvir 13).
Example of a project that generated the expected output and result Poland The audited project involving the extension and modernisation of a pumping station, with an estimated cost of 700 000 euro, was completed in line with technical specifications, with approximately 100 000 euro in savings compared to the budget approved (obtained through competitive tendering), and with a delay of 5 months due to the late delivery of an administrative document. 
Primer projekta, ki je ustvaril pričakovane izložke in rezultate Poljska Revidirani projekt razširitve in posodobitve črpalne postaje s predvidenimi stroški 700 000 EUR je bil zaključen v skladu s tehničnimi specifikacijami, ustvaril je približno 100 000 EUR prihrankov glede na odobren proračun (pridobljen v okviru razpisa, odprtega za konkurenco), izveden pa je bil s petmesečno zamudo zaradi pozne predložitve upravnega dokumenta.
The new, more powerful pumping station was needed after the extensive flooding of almost 800 ha in the region in 2001 and improved the protection of 320 ha of agricultural land against seasonal flooding. 
Nova, močnejša črpalka je bila potrebna, saj je bilo leta 2001 močno poplavljenih skoraj 800 ha v regiji, izboljšala pa je zaščito 320 ha kmetijskih zemljišč pred sezonskimi poplavami.
Observations 39 79 However, this is not always the case. 
Okvir 13 Opažanja 39 79 Vendar ni vedno tako.
It is possible for projects to fail to achieve the intended results, despite delivering the agreed physical outputs. 
Možno je, da projekti ne dosežejo načrtovanih rezultatov, čeprav so prinesli dogovorjene fizične izložke.
The audit found that the Member States did not collect reliable information regarding the short-to medium-term success of the projects in terms of achieving RDP objectives and the project-specific targets. 
Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da države članice niso zbirale zanesljivih informacij o kratkoročnih in srednjeročnih uspehih projektov v smislu doseganja ciljev iz programov razvoja podeželja ter specifičnih ciljnih vrednosti, določenih za posamezen projekt.
This was mainly due to the failure to establish relevant indicators and an absence of specific objectives and targets in the application and grant decision. 
To je predvsem zato, ker niso določile ustreznih kazalnikov in ker v vlogah in sklepih o dodelitvi nepovratnih sredstev niso bili navedeni specifični cilji in ciljne vrednosti.
For example, although the RDP for Italy (Sicily) set the objective of achieving water savings through investments in water infrastructure, the authorities had not established an indicator that would allow them to assess the achievement of this objective; the projects audited also lacked related quantifiable targets. 
Na primer, čeprav je bil v programu razvoja podeželja za Italijo (Sicilijo) določen cilj, da bodo naložbe v vodno infrastrukturo prinesle prihranke vode, organi niso oblikovali kazalnika, s katerim bi lahko ocenili, ali je bil ta cilj dosežen.
80 At the date of the audit, three out of the five Member States audited (Spain (Extremadura), Italy (Sicily) and Poland) had not submitted the mandatory monitoring information required by the CMEF regarding the measure 125 result indicator, ‘increase in gross value added in supported holdings’. 
80 Na dan revizije tri od petih revidiranih držav članic (Španija (Ekstremadura), Italija (Sicilija) in Poljska) niso predložile obveznih informacij o spremljanju, ki se v okviru CMEF zahtevajo za kazalnik rezultatov „zvišanje bruto dodane vrednosti pri podprtih gospodarstvih” pri ukrepu 125.
The remaining two Member States (Germany (Saxony) and Romania) reported a value for this indicator, which was however based on unreliable information (see Box 14). 
Preostali dve državi članici (Nemčija (Saška) in Romunija) sta za ta kazalnik navedli vrednosti, ki pa sta temeljili na nezanesljivih informacijah (glej okvir 14).
Unreliable data collection method: financial data from farms not taken into account in measuring their competitiveness Romania The indicator ‘increase in gross value added in supported holdings’ aims to quantify the impact of measure 125 on the competitiveness of agricultural and forestry holdings supported. 
Nezanesljiva metoda zbiranja podatkov: finančni podatki s kmetij niso bili upoštevani pri merjenju njihove konkurenčnosti Romunija Kazalnik „zvišanje bruto dodane vrednosti pri podprtih gospodarstvih” se uporablja za količinsko opredelitev vpliva ukrepa 125 na konkurenčnost kmetijskih in gozdarskih gospodarstev, ki so prejela podporo.
However, in Romania the indicator was calculated at the level of the whole commune where the project was implemented (based on the commune’s financial accounts) and not for the farms benefiting from the new roads. 
V Romuniji pa je bil ta kazalnik izračunan na ravni celotne občine, v kateri se je projekt izvajal (na podlagi občinskih računovodskih izkazov), in ne za kmetije, ki imajo koristi od novih cest.
81 As regards the result indicator for measures 321, 322 and 323, ‘population in rural areas benefiting from improved services’, Member States reported the entire population of the commune where the project was implemented, irrespective of the number of actual users of the financed infrastructure (see Box 15). 
81 Pri kazalniku rezultatov „prebivalstvo na podeželju, ki ima koristi od izboljšanih storitev” v okviru ukrepov 321, 322 in 323 so države članice navedle celotno prebivalstvo občine, v kateri se je projekt izvajal, ne glede na število dejanskih uporabnikov financirane infrastrukture (glej okvir 15).
This reporting method leads to inflated figures, especially since when several projects are implemented in a single commune, the entire population of the commune is reported for each of these projects, and is thus counted several times when the figures are aggregated. 
Ta metoda poročanja vodi do pretirano visokih številk, zlasti zato, ker se v primeru, ko se v posamezni občini izvede več projektov, pri vsakem projektu navede celotno prebivalstvo občine, ki je tako šteto večkrat, ko se podatki združijo.
Box 14 
Okvir 14
Observations 40 Example of a project for which the total population of a commune was considered as benefiting from a new investment, although the project concerned only a limited number of inhabitants Germany (Saxony) For a project concerning the refurbishment of a 200-metre stretch of village road, the German authorities reported under the result indicator for measure 322, ‘population in rural areas benefiting from improved services’, that 40 631 people were benefiting from this investment. 
Opažanja 40 Primer projekta, pri katerem je bilo navedeno, da nova naložba koristi celotnemu prebivalstvu občine, čeprav se je projekt nanašal le na omejeno število prebivalcev Nemčija (Saška) Pri projektu obnove 200 m dolgega odseka vaške ceste so nemški organi za kazalnik rezultatov „prebivalstvo na podeželju, ki ima koristi od izboljšanih storitev” v okviru ukrepa 322 navedli, da je od te naložbe imelo koristi 40 631 ljudi.
This is the total number of people living in the commune; however, only a small proportion of them actually use the road, as about 300 people live in the village where the project was implemented. 
To je celotno število ljudi, ki živijo v občini, od katerih pa cesto uporablja le majhen odstotek, saj v vasi, kjer je bil izveden projekt, živi le okoli 300 ljudi.
In its annual progress report for 2014, Saxony reported under the measure 322 result indicator that 2.9 million people were benefiting from improved services in rural areas. 
V svojem letnem poročilu o napredku za leto 2014 je Saška pri kazalniku rezultatov v okviru ukrepa 322 navedla, da je imelo koristi od izboljšanih storitev na podeželskih območjih 2,9 milijona ljudi.
This is more than the state’s total rural population of about 2 million people. 
To je več od skupnega števila prebivalcev na podeželskih območjih v deželi Saški, ki jih je okoli 2 milijona.
82 Even when the audited Member States did set out additional, programme-specific indicators, these were incapable of measuring the success of the interventions. 
82 Tudi če so revidirane države članice določile dodatne specifične kazalnike za posamezne programe, z njimi ni bilo mogoče izmeriti uspešnosti posredovanj.
This was due to two main issues. Firstly, Member States did not set targets. Secondly, the additional indicators measured outputs such as the number of kilometres of road repaired, rather than results related to the RDP objectives, such as achieving water savings, allowing farmers to reduce transport costs and providing certain services to the rural population. 
Vzroka sta bila dva: prvič, države članice niso določile ciljnih vrednosti, in drugič, dodatni kazalniki so merili izložke, kot so število kilometrov popravljenih cest, namesto da bi merili rezultate v zvezi s cilji programa razvoja podeželja, na primer doseganje vodnih prihrankov, zmanjševanje stroškov prevoza za kmete in zagotavljanje nekaterih storitev podeželskemu prebivalstvu.
83 Twenty of the 32 audited projects lacked measurable targets for results. 
83 Dvajset od 32 revidiranih projektov ni imelo merljivih ciljnih vrednosti v zvezi z rezultati.
However, the auditors could obtain some data on the actual results achieved (see examples in Box 16 and detailed information in Annex II). 
Kljub temu so revizorji uspešno pridobili nekaj podatkov o dejansko doseženih rezultatih (glej primere v okviru 16 in podrobne informacije v Prilogi II).
Whilst certain positive results were observed in 13 cases, in 10 of these the information was not sufficient to allow the auditors to conclude on the projects’ effectiveness in addressing RDP objectives. 
V 13 primerih so bili ugotovljeni nekateri pozitivni rezultati, v desetih primerih pa revizorji niso imeli dovolj informacij, da bi lahko presodili uspešnost projektov pri doseganju ciljev iz programov razvoja podeželja.
In four cases, the relevant indicators showed that targets had not been achieved. 
V štirih primerih so zadevni kazalniki pokazali, da ciljne vrednosti niso bile dosežene.
In three further cases, the information obtained was not reliable. 
V treh nadaljnjih primerih pridobljene informacije niso bile zanesljive.
Box 15 
Okvir 15
Observations 41 Limited evidence of positive results and unreliable data In Italy (Sicily) and Spain (Extremadura), the authorities did not collect data on individual project results. 
Opažanja 41 Omejeni dokazi o pozitivnih rezultatih in nezanesljivi podatki V Italiji (Sicilija) in Španiji (Ekstremadura) pristojni organi niso zbirali podatkov o rezultatih posameznih projektov.
Upon the auditors’ request, only three of the eight and respectively two of the seven audited beneficiaries in these two regions could provide some quantified result data. 
Na zahtevo Sodišča so samo trije revidirani upravičenci od osmih oziroma dva od sedmih v teh dveh regijah uspeli predložiti nekaj količinsko opredeljenih podatkov o rezultatih.