natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Romania was the last-but-one Sapard country to have parts of its systems approved, but it was not well-prepared for applying the programme in August 2002. 
Romunija je bila predzadnja država Saparda, ki je prejela odobritev za dele svojih sistemov, vendar avgusta 2002 še ni bila dobro pripravljena za uporabo programa.
The time between receiving the application form and approving it took up to seven-and-a-half months. 
Med prejetjem obrazca vloge in njeno odobritvijo je preteklo tudi do sedem mesecev in pol.
Since April 2003 the situation has improved because the Romanian authorities have changed certain procedures and increased the number of staff available to deal with these applications. 
Z aprilom 2003 se je položaj izboljšal, saj so romunski državni organi spremenili nekatere postopke in povečali število osebja za obravnavanje teh vlog.
Despite these delays, the large number of applications made it possible for the Romanian authorities to use all funds planned for rural infrastructure for the whole seven-year period (2000-2006). 
Kljub tem zamudam je veliko število vlog romunskim organom omogočilo, da uporabijo vsa sredstva, ki so bila načrtovana za podeželsko infrastrukturo za celotno sedemletno obdobje (2000–2006).
Poland also received a large number of applications for this type of project. 
Tudi Poljska je za tovrstni projekt prejela veliko vlog.
However, for administrative reasons not required by the Sapard rules, more than 250 million euro which were available were not used for more than one year (1). 
Vendar pa zaradi upravnih razlogov, ki jih predpisi programa Sapard ne zahtevajo, več kot leto dni ni bilo porabljenih prek 250 milijonov razpoložljivih eurov (1).
This hampered an efficient implementation of Sapard. 
S tem je bilo ovirano učinkovito izvajanje programa Sapard.
In Lithuania, the average time between submission of the project application and signature of the contract is 4,5 months. 
V Litvi preteče med predložitvijo vloge za projekt in podpisom pogodbe v povprečju 4,5 meseca.
One of the main reasons for the delays in approving the applications is the lack of staff in the key unit which evaluates all project applications. 
Eden od glavnih razlogov za zamude pri odobritvi vlog je pomanjkanje osebja v ključni organizacijski enoti, ki ocenjuje vse vloge za projekte.
In Bulgaria, all checks made at local level are reperformed by the Sapard Agency at central level. 
V Bolgariji vsa preverjanja, ki se opravljajo na lokalni ravni, znova izvede agencija Sapard na centralni ravni.
This adds about one month to each project approval (thereby delaying project implementation) and about one month to each payment approval stage. 
Tako je za odobritev vsakega projekta potreben še približno en mesec (kar vodi do zamud pri izvajanju projektov) ter približno en mesec za fazo odobritve posameznega plačila.
Such double checks are necessary when systems are set up, but the need for them should be kept under review. 
Tovrstna dvojna preverjanja so potrebna, ko so sistemi že vzpostavljeni, vendar je treba potrebo po njih redno preučevati.
As will be seen in paragraph 35, the Commission has not looked actively for implementation problems such as the ones described above. 
Kot bo razvidno iz odstavka 35, Komisija ni dejavno iskala vseh problemov pri izvajanju, kakor so opisani zgoraj.
Although in some cases the Commission has taken action by discussing the issue with the country concerned, this was not done systematically. 
Čeprav je Komisija nekajkrat ukrepala tako, da je o vprašanju razpravljala z zadevno državo, tega ni počela sistematično.
The Commission did not analyse the critical steps which delayed the setting up of the systems by the Sapard countries. 
Komisija ni analizirala kritičnih ukrepov, zaradi katerih so države Saparda zamujale pri vzpostavitvi svojih sistemov.
This would have been good management practice. Such an analysis should include its own role and would have been useful, (1) The reason for the delays is the following. 
Takšna analiza bi morala imeti (1) Razlog za zamude je naslednji: Poljska deli letne proračune na posebne ukrepe in, za največje ukrepe, na posebne regije.
Application rounds are launched for specific regional, annual allocations. 
Krogi za oddajo vlog se odpirajo za posebne regionalne, letne dodelitve.
This practice of linking projects to specific regional, annual allocations blocked the use of other available budgets. 
Ta praksa povezovanja projektov s posebnimi regionalnimi, letnimi dodelitvami je ovirala uporabo drugih razpoložljivih proračunov.
For rural development infrastructure, the allocation to the regions requires a decision by the Ministry of Agriculture, which was, for a large part of the funds, not done until 22 September 2003. because Sapard countries could have taken into account success factors when setting up systems for the management of EU funds. 
Za infrastrukturo za razvoj podeželja je za dodelitev regijam potreben sklep Ministrstva za kmetijstvo, ki je bil za večji del sredstev sprejet šele 22. septembra 2003. svojo vlogo in biti koristna, saj bi lahko države Saparda ob vzpostavljanju svojih sistemov za upravljanje s sredstvi EU upoštevale dejavnike uspeha.
Later, the Commission also did not include such an analysis in the mid-term evaluation of the programme in each Sapard country. 
Prav tako Komisija takšne analize pozneje ni vključila v vmesno ocenjevanje programa v vseh državah Saparda.
By including this element, success factors and constraints in putting in place the systems could have been identified, thereby assisting similar exercises in the future. 
Vključitev tega elementa bi omogočila opredelitev dejavnikov uspeha in ovir pri vzpostavljanju sistemov ter s tem pripomogla k prihodnjemu izvajanju podobnih nalog.
An external evaluation was not launched to ensure that the experience gained from Sapard could be used in the future. and budgets were systematically under-utilised 24. 
Zunanje ocenjevanje, ki bi zagotovilo, da bi se lahko izkušnje, pridobljene s programom Sapard, uporabljale v bodoče, ni bilo izvedeno. in proračuni so bili sistematično neizkoriščeni 24.
The Commission could not make accurate estimates of the amounts included for payments in the budgets for the first three years. 
Komisija ni mogla izdelati natančnih ocen zneskov, ki so bili v proračunih vključeni za plačila za prva tri leta.
Up to the end of 2002, it made 850,8 million euro available for payments, of which only 154,4 million euro (18 %) were used, while the other part was cancelled (2). 
Do konca leta 2002 je za plačila namenila 850,8 milijona eurov, od katerih je bilo porabljenih le 154,4 milijona eurov (18 %), medtem ko je bil drugi del preklican (2).
The Commission noted that the payment estimates were uncertain because they depended on factors which were out of its control and there was no previous experience in managing external aid in a decentralised manner. 
Komisija je opomnila, da so bile ocene plačil negotove, saj so bile odvisne od dejavnikov, nad katerimi ni imela nadzora, poleg tega pa ni bilo nikakršnih predhodnih izkušenj z decentraliziranim upravljanjem zunanje pomoči.
Thus, the amounts could not be based on sufficiently detailed documentation and calculations. 
Zaradi tega zneski niso mogli temeljiti na dovolj podrobni dokumentaciji in izračunih.
Instead, other arguments were provided to justify the amounts, such as the need to give a positive signal that the Commission was confident that the countries concerned would be able to implement Sapard. 
Namesto tega so bili za njihovo utemeljitev predloženi drugi argumenti, kot je potreba po potrditvi, da je Komisija prepričana, da bodo zadevne države sposobne izvajati program Sapard.
There is a need to separate political will and economic reality but, as a consequence of an undue emphasis on the former, the Commission systematically overestimated the amounts for payments in the budget. 
Politično voljo je treba ločevati od gospodarskega stanja, vendar je zaradi pretiranega poudarka na prvi Komisija sistematično precenjevala zneske za plačila v proračunu.
Until June 1999, external aid required ex ante approval by the Commission for project selection, tendering and contracting. 
Do junija 1999 je bila za zunanjo pomoč za izbiranje projektov, javne razpise in oddajanje naročil potrebna predhodna odobritev Komisije.
The legal basis for Sapard made it possible, for the first time, that such ex ante approvals for external aid could be waived. 
Pravna podlaga za program Sapard je prvič omogočila opustitev tovrstnih predhodnih odobritev za zunanjo pomoč.
The Council did not stipulate that such a system of decentralised management must be used, but the Commission opted for this. 
Čeprav Svet ni zahteval uporabe takšnega sistema decentraliziranega upravljanja, se je Komisija odločila zanj.
The (2) The amount of 154,4 million euro cannot be compared with the diagram because it includes 139,7 million euro of advance payments made by the Commission to applicant countries and 0,1 million euro for seminars. 
Odločitev (2) Zneska 154,4 milijona eurov ni mogoče primerjati s Sliko, saj vključuje 139,7 milijona eurov predplačil, ki jih je Komisija izplačala državam prosilkam, in 0,1 milijona eurov za seminarje.
These amounts are not shown in the diagram because they are not paid to final beneficiaries. 
Ta zneska v Sliki nista prikazana, ker nista izplačana končnim upravičencem.
The 154,4 million euro also includes 14,6 million euro of payments made by the Sapard agencies, from the advance payments, to final beneficiaries. 
Znesek 154,4 milijona eurov vključuje tudi 14,6 milijona eurov za plačila, ki jih agencije Sapard od predplačil izplačajo končnim upravičencem.
These latter payments (adjusted by the Court for timing differences because the Commission books the payments on a cash basis) are shown as section ÔCŐ in Figure 1. 
Slednja plačila (ki jih Sodišče prilagaja časovnim razlikam, saj jih Komisija evidentira na podlagi dejansko realiziranih plačil) so v Sliki prikazana kot razdelek „C“.
C 295/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.11.2004 CommissionŐs option for decentralised implementation was correct given the likely large numbers of projects to be financed. 
C 295/8 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 30.11.2004 Komisije za decentralizirano izvajanje je bila pravilna glede na predvidoma veliko število projektov, ki jih je treba financirati.
Since the Commission had not set out the methods for managing the programme either as part of its proposal for the Sapard Regulation in March 1998, or during the subsequent period, it needed to do this after the adoption of the Regulation in June 1999 by the Council. 
Ker Komisija ni izoblikovala metod za upravljanje programa niti v okviru svojega predloga za uredbo Sapard marca 1998 niti v poznejšem obdobju, je to morala storiti potem, ko je Svet sprejel uredbe junija 1999.
In January 2000, the Commission adopted a communication indicating that Sapard should be managed decentrally. 
Januarja 2000 je Komisija sprejela sporočilo, da je treba program Sapard upravljati decentralizirano.
The reasons given by the Commission as to why it decided upon decentralised implementation were: Ń that it did not have the necessary technical and human resources to manage the expected large number of small projects, Ń to prepare the Sapard countries for management of agricultural and rural development spending after accession. but the lack of preparation by the Commission and the tight time frame led to difficulties with decentralisation 28. 
Navedena razloga za odločitev Komisije za decentralizirano izvajanje sta bila: — da ni imela potrebnih tehničnih in človeških virov za upravljanje velikega števila majhnih projektov, — da bi države Saparda pripravila na upravljanje porabe sredstev za razvoj kmetijstva in podeželja po pristopu. vendar sta pomanjkljiva priprava Komisije in tesen časovni okvir privedla do težav pri decentralizaciji 28.
The Berlin European Council of March 1999 assumed that the accession of six new Member States, five of which were eligible for Sapard, might take place from 2002 onwards (1). 
Evropski svet je na svojem zasedanju v Berlinu marca 1999 domneval, da lahko od leta 2002 naprej pristopi šest novih držav članic, od katerih je pet izpolnjevalo pogoje programa Sapard (1).
Since this meant for those five countries that Sapard would only be operational for two years, it was necessary to start the Sapard programme as soon as possible in order to have effect. 
Ker je to za teh pet držav pomenilo, da bo program Sapard deloval le dve leti, ga je bilo treba začeti čim hitreje, da bi lahko imel učinek.
However, by opting for decentralised implementation the Commission had to provide a legal framework for making Sapard rules applicable in those countries. 
Vendar je morala Komisija s tem, ko je izbrala decentralizirano izvajanje, zagotoviti pravni okvir, ki bi omogočil uporabo predpisov programa Sapard v teh državah.
Then the Sapard countries needed to set up their systems, for which they had no previous experience. 
Nato so države Saparda morale vzpostaviti sisteme, s katerimi pa niso imele izkušenj.
Given the complexity of the tasks, the Commission under-estimated the time which would be needed for this to be done. 
Glede na zahtevnost nalog je Komisija slabo ocenila čas, ki bi bil potreben za dosego tega.
Of the five countries, only Estonia (in June 2001) and Slovenia (in November 2001) had their systems approved by the Commission before 2002. 
Od petih držav je Komisija pred letom 2002 odobrila sistema le Estoniji (junija 2001) in Sloveniji (novembra 2001).
The time taken did not result in a shortening of the implementation period for Sapard because the Gothenburg European Council of June 2001 set May 2004 as the accession date, due to protracted enlargement negotiations. and the CommissionŐs management was not always suited to Sapard countriesŐ needs 31. 
Čas, ki je bil za to potreben, ni privedel do skrajšanja obdobja izvajanja programa Sapard, saj je Evropski svet na svojem zasedanju v Göteborgu junija 2001 zaradi podaljšanih pogajanj o širitvi za datum pristopa določil maj 2004. in upravljanje s strani Komisije ni vedno ustrezalo potrebam držav Saparda 31.
In line with the principles of EU programmes in the Member States, the Sapard countries have full responsibility for the management of Sapard. 
V skladu z načeli programov EU v državah članicah so države Saparda v celoti odgovorne za upravljanje programa Sapard.
The international agreements, signed between them and the Commission, assign the responsibility for day-to-day management, in particular identifying and addressing implementation problems, to the Sapard countries. 
Mednarodni sporazumi, podpisani med slednjimi in Komisijo, nalagajo odgovornost za vsakodnevno upravljanje, zlasti pri opredeljevanju in reševanju problemov v zvezi z izvajanjem, državam Saparda.
(1) Initially, accession was foreseen for six countries: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia (Sapard) and Cyprus (non-Sapard). 
(1) Sprva je bil pristop predviden za šest držav: Češko, Estonijo, Madžarsko, Poljsko, Slovenijo (države Saparda) in Ciper (ni bila država Sapa-rda).
In the CommissionŐs view, its responsibility under a system of decentralised management is to monitor the implementation of Sapard. 
Po mnenju Komisije je njena odgovornost v okviru sistema decentraliziranega upravljanja spremljanje izvajanja programa Sapard.
The formal tools for this are through the negotiation of the programmes, analysis of annual implementation reports provided by the Sapard countries and the participation, in an advisory capacity, in each national Monitoring Committee, which meet twice a year (2). 
Formalna orodja za to so pogajanja glede programov, analiza letnih poročil o izvajanju, ki jih predložijo države Saparda, in sodelovanje pri svetovalni vlogi pri delu vseh nacionalnih nadzornih odborov, ki zasedajo dvakrat na leto (2).
The Commission assigned few staff to do this. 
Komisija je za to nalogo določila premalo osebja.
On average less than the time of one official was allocated for managing the programme of a Sapard country (3). 
V povprečju je bil za upravljanje ene države Saparda določen manj kot en uradnik (3).
For instance, a single official was responsible for overseeing the implementation of both the Romanian and the Bulgarian programmes amounting to 1 442 million euro of Community assistance. 
En uradnik je bil, denimo, odgovoren za nadziranje izvajanja romunskega in bolgarskega programa, ki sta znašala 1 442 milijonov eurov pomoči Skupnosti.
The CommissionŐs approach for managing the programme can be illustrated by the following. As part of the 2001 discharge, the European Parliament criticised the Commission for under-implementation of the Sapard budget, because payments to final beneficiaries were very low. 
Komisijin pristop do upravljanja programa se lahko ponazori z naslednjim: V zvezi z izvajanjem obveznosti v letu 2001 je Evropski parlament kritiziral Komisijo zaradi nezadostnega izvrševanja proračuna programa Sapard, saj so bila plačila končnim upravičencem zelo nizka.
The Commission replied that expenditure is essentially a function of how rapidly beneficiaries incur expenditure, which the Commission could not control. 
Komisija je na to odgovorila, da so bili izdatki v bistvu odvisni od tega, kako hitro upravičenci ustvarjajo stroške, nad čemer pa Komisija ni imela nadzora.
The Commission gave a commitment to speed up implementation, of which the main result was that letters were sent to beneficiary countries asking them what the Commission could do (4). 
Komisija se je zavezala, da bo pospešila izvajanje, glavni rezultat tega pa je bil, da je državam upravičenkam poslala pisma, v katerih jih je vprašala, kaj lahko stori (4).
The CourtŐs audit identified several areas where different practices are applied in the Sapard countries, some with good results but others which are counter-productive (see paragraphs 21, 39, 80, 90, 95, 103 and 109). 
Revizija Sodišča je opredelila več področij, na katerih se v državah Saparda uporabljajo različne prakse, nekatere z dobrimi rezultati in druge s kontraproduktivnim učinkom (glej odstavke 21, 39, 80, 90, 95, 103 in 109).
The Commission has helped by the organisation of seminars and its daily contacts with the Sapard countries, but this does not guarantee that implementation problems are actively and systematically identified and that action is taken in order to ensure that the best practices are implemented in all 10 countries (see also paragraphs 85 and 86). 
Komisija pomaga z organiziranjem seminarjev in vsakodnevnimi stiki z državami Saparda, vendar to ni zagotovilo, da se problemi pri izvajanju aktivno in sistematično opredeljujejo in da se sprejemajo ukrepi, ki bi omogočali izvajanja najboljših praks v vseh desetih državah (glej tudi odstavka 85–86).
MAIN RESULTS OF SAPARD Limited impact in 8 out of 10 countries 36. 
GLAVNI REZULTATI SAPARDA Omejen učinek v osmih od desetih držav 36.
The Sapard Regulation established the framework for Community support for the pre-accession period. 
Uredba Sapard je izoblikovala okvir za podporo Skupnosti za predpristopno obdobje.
For 8 out of 10 of the beneficiary countries, this period is from 1 January 2000 until 1 May 2004. 
Za osem držav upravičenk od desetih je to obdobje trajalo od 1. januarja 2000 do 1. maja 2004.
The expenditure paid to final beneficiaries up to 31 December 2003 was 323 million euro (2) The other official ways to be informed reach the Commission at later stages: results of mid-term evaluation (by 31 December 2003) and final evaluation (by 31 December 2006). 
(2) (3) (4) Komisija se na druge uradne načine obvešča v poznejših fazah: rezultati vmesnega ocenjevanja (do 31. decembra 2003) in končne ocene (do 31. decembra 2006).
(3) Commission staff involvement in audits is not considered as management in a strict sense and is discussed in paragraph 58. 
Osebje Komisije, ki sodeluje pri revizijah, se ne obravnava kot uprava v strogem smislu in je obravnavano v odstavku 58.
(4) TheCommissioncouldnotcontroltherateofcommitmentsandpay-ments because it did not want to change the fully decentralised management framework of Sapard and did not propose changes such as an additional measure for credit or guarantees. 
Komisija ni mogla nadzirati ravni obveznosti in plačil, ker ni hotela spremeniti popolnoma decentraliziranega okvira upravljanja programa Sapard, niti ni predlagala sprememb, kot je dodatni ukrep za sredstva ali garancije.
30.11.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/9 (14,8 % of the available budget of 2 183 million euro), more than half of which was paid in the last quarter of 2003. 
30.11.2004 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 295/9 Izdatki, ki so se končnim upravičencem izplačali do 31. decembra 2003, so znašali 323 milijonov eurov (14,8 % razpoložljivega proračuna 2 183 milijonov eurov), od katerih je bila več kot polovica izplačana v zadnjem trimesečju leta 2003.
Due to the low level of expenditure during the pre-accession period for these countries (see paragraphs 11 to 20), there has been only a minor contribution to the objectives defined in the Regulation before accession. 
Zaradi nizke ravni izdatkov v predpristopnem obdobju za te države (glej odstavke 11–20) je bil prispevek k ciljem, določenim v Uredbi, pred pristopom majhen.
For Bulgaria and Romania, the European Council has set a target date for accession of 1 January 2007, provided that these countries meet the necessary requirements. 
Za Bolgarijo in Romunijo je Evropski svet za ciljni datum pristopa določil 1. januar 2007, pod pogojem, da ti državi izpol-nita potrebne zahteve.
For these countries, a much higher impact can be expected. VAT included as eligible expenditure does not contribute to Sapard objectives 38. Under the international agreements concluded between the Commission and each Sapard country, VAT invoiced on equipment or services may not be charged as an eligible cost for reimbursement if any of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) if it is recoverable, refunded or offset by any means whatsoever; There was little contribution to achieving ÔEU standardsŐ 41. 
Za ti državi se lahko pričakuje veliko večji učinek. vključitev DDV med upravičene izdatke ne prispeva k ciljem programa Sapard 38. V skladu z mednarodnimi sporazumi, ki so bili sklenjeni med Komisijo in vsako državo Saparda posebej, se fakturirani DDV na opremo ali storitve ne sme zaračunati kot upravičeni strošek za nadomestilo, če je izpolnjen kateri koli od naslednjih pogojev: (a) če je kakor koli povračljiv, povrnjen ali nadomeščen; (b) če ni sestavni del sistema splošnega obdavčevanja; ali (c) če je v nesorazmerju s katerim koli delom programa.
The Sapard Regulation stipulates in Article 4(3) that the countries concerned shall ensure that priority is given to improving market efficiency, quality and health standards and measures to create new employment in rural areas, in compliance with the provisions on the protection of the environment. 
Uredba Sapard v členu 4(3) določa, da zadevne države zagotovijo, da se daje prednost izboljševanju tržne učinkovitosti, kakovosti ter zdravstvenih standardov in ukrepom za ustvarjanje novih delovnih mest na podeželskih območjih, v skladu z določbami o varstvu okolja.
The CourtŐs audit found that 44 out of the 46 projects reviewed for the two measures Ôinvestments in agricultural holdingsŐ and Ôimproving the processing and marketing of agricultural productsŐ increased or modernised production (1). 
Ugotovitve revizije Sodišča so pokazale, da je 44 od 46 projektov, ki so bili preučeni v zvezi z dvema ukrepoma „naložbe v kmetijska gospodarstva“ in „izboljševanje predelovanja in trženja kmetijskih proizvodov“, povečalo ali moderniziralo proizvodnjo (1).
However, only two projects were implemented which had as the main objective the improvement of standards of the business. 
Le pri izvajanju dveh projektov pa je bil glavni cilj izboljševanje standardov poslovanja.