natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should take the opportunity provided by the enhanced annual implementation report to be submitted by Member States in 2019 to assess the effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms and suggest improvements where necessary. 
Izkoristiti mora priložnost in na podlagi razširjenih letnih poročil o izvajanju, ki jih morajo države članice predložiti v letu 2019, oceniti uspešnost usklajevalnih mehanizmov in po potrebi predlagati izboljšave.
Conclusions and recommendations 47 102 EU legislation requires Member States to establish selection criteria; these should allow the most effective and efficient eligible projects to be prioritised, and provide a basis for rejecting those that do not represent value for money. 
Zaključki in priporočila 47 102 V skladu z zakonodajo EU morajo države članice določiti izbirna merila, ki morajo biti takšna, da dajejo prednost najuspešnejšim in najučinkovitejšim upravičenim projektom ter dajejo podlago za izločitev stroškovno neučinkovitih projektov.
In the Member States audited, selection criteria were either not set out or they did not always lead to actual prioritisation of the most cost-effective projects in relation to the RDP objectives (see paragraphs 43 to 49). 
V revidiranih državah članicah izbirna merila ali niso bila določena ali pa niso vedno vodila k dejanski prednostni razvrstitvi stroškovno najučinkovitejših projektov na podlagi ciljev iz programa razvoja podeželja (glej odstavke 43 do 49).
103 The Court identified weaknesses in the systems put in place by the Member States to assess the reasonableness of project costs. 
103 Sodišče je ugotovilo slabosti v sistemih, ki so jih države članice določile za ocenjevanje razumnosti načrtovanih stroškov projektov.
These weaknesses increase the risk of public funds not being spent in the most economical way. 
Te slabosti povečujejo tveganje, da se javna sredstva ne porabijo na najbolj gospodaren način.
The Member States audited mainly relied on the use of reference prices and public procurement procedures to ensure the reasonableness of costs. 
Revidirane države članice so se za zagotovitev razumnosti stroškov v glavnem zanašale na uporabo referenčnih cen in postopkov javnega naročanja.
However, these tools were not adequately applied to ensure reasonableness of costs, as the Court has noted in its previous reports. 
Vendar pa se ta orodja niso ustrezno uporabljala, da bi lahko zagotovila razumnost stroškov, kot je Sodišče ugotovilo v svojih prejšnjih poročilih.
Although widely used, the systems based on reference price lists showed serious limitations, as reference prices were often set above the real market prices at which transactions happen (for example when competitive tenders are organised). 
Čeprav so se sistemi, ki temeljijo na referenčnih cenah, pogosto uporabljali, so imeli resne omejitve, saj so bile referenčne cene postavljene nad dejanskimi tržnimi cenami izvedenih transakcij (na primer pri organizaciji razpisov, odprti za konkurenco).
In several cases, public procurement processes hindered fair competition and reasonableness of costs (see paragraphs 50 to 54). 
V več primerih sta bila zaradi postopkov javnega naročanja omejena poštena konkurenca in razumnost stroškov (glej odstavke 50 do 54).
104 To ensure the sustainability of investments, the audited Member States generally applied the standard 5-year commitment period requirement — which in practice was reduced to much less for most of the projects. 
104 Za zagotovitev trajnosti naložb so revidirane države članice v splošnem uporabljale standardno zahtevo petletnega obdobja prevzema obveznosti, ki pa je bilo v praksi za večino projektov veliko krajše.
For certain projects, three of the audited Member States applied longer commitment periods, which were more in line with the useful life of the investments. 
Tri od revidiranih držav članic so pri nekaterih projektih uporabljale daljša obdobja prevzema obveznosti, ki so se bolje skladala z dobo koristnosti naložbe.
However, none of the audited Member States asked beneficiaries to provide a detailed maintenance plan and to set aside some budget for maintenance (see paragraphs 55 to 60). 
Nobena od revidiranih držav članic pa ni od upravičencev zahtevala, naj predložijo podroben načrt vzdrževanja in določena sredstva rezervirajo za vzdrževanje (glej odstavke 55 do 60).
105 To make EAFRD funding attractive to potential beneficiaries and to allow projects to generate timely benefits for rural areas, administrative procedures should not be excessively long and burdensome. 
105 Da bi bilo financiranje iz EKSRP privlačno za morebitne upravičence in da bi projekti lahko pravočasno koristili podeželskim območjem, upravni postopki ne smejo biti pretirano dolgi in obremenjujoči.
Two of the audited Member States/regions did not set deadlines for processing grant and payment applications, whereas the other three largely exceeded the deadlines they had set, especially for grant applications (see paragraphs 61 to 65). 
Dve od revidiranih držav članic/regij nista določili rokov za obdelavo vlog za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev in zahtevkov za plačilo, ostale tri pa so roke, ki so si jih zastavile same, močno prekoračile, zlasti pri vlogah za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev (glej odstavke 61 do 65).
106 In the first part of the 2007-2013 programming period, the Commission did not sufficiently encourage Member States to follow the value-for-money principles (economy, efficiency and effectiveness), for example by setting selection criteria prioritising the most cost-effective projects, applying sound reference prices and ensuring fair and competitive public procurement procedures. 
106 V prvem delu programskega obdobja 2007–2013 Komisija ni dovolj spodbujala držav članic, naj upoštevajo načela stroškovne učinkovitosti (gospodarnost, učinkovitost in uspešnost), na primer tako, da določijo izbirna merila za projekte, ki dajejo prednost najbolj stroškovno učinkovitim projektom, uporabljajo preverjene referenčne cene in zagotovijo poštene in za konkurenco odprte postopke javnega naročanja.
The Commission has, however, proposed some improvements for the 2014-2020 programming period (see paragraphs 66 to 72). 
Za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 pa je Komisija vendarle predlagala nekaj izboljšav (glej odstavke 66 do 72).
Conclusions and recommendations 48 Recommendation 2 — Management of the measures (a) Member States should establish and consistently apply criteria to ensure the selection of the most cost-effective projects — the projects with the potential to make the greatest contribution to the RDP objectives per unit of cost (such as projects delivering the highest increase in farms’ productivity or the highest water savings per unit of cost in areas most seriously affected by water shortages). 
Zaključki in priporočila 48 Priporočilo 2 – Upravljanje ukrepov (a) Države članice bi morale določiti in dosledno uporabljati merila, s katerimi bi zagotovile izbiro stroškovno najučinkovitejših projektov, tj. projektov, ki bi lahko na enoto stroškov v največji meri prispevali k ciljem iz programa razvoja podeželja (kot so projekti, ki na enoto stroškov prinesejo največji dvig produktivnosti kmetij ali največje prihranke vode na območjih z najhujšim pomanjkanjem vode).
These selection systems should systematically set a minimum threshold taking into account the quality of the projects. (b) With regard to effective checks on the reasonableness of costs, the Commission and the Member States should implement the recommendations in the Court’s special report on this subject39. 
V okviru teh izbirnih sistemov bi se moral sistematično določiti spodnji prag ob upoštevanju kakovosti projektov. (b) Komisija in države članice bi morale izvajati priporočila iz posebnega poročila Sodišča v zvezi z uspešnimi pregledi razumnosti stroškov39.
In particular for infrastructure projects, the Member States should ensure that project cost estimations are based on up-to-date price information that reflects actual market prices and that public procurement procedures are fair and transparent and promote genuine competition. (c) Member States should take into account the useful life of the supported investments when establishing the sustainability-related requirements and checks. (d) Member States should set a reasonable timeframe for processing grant and payment applications and respect it. 
Države članice bi morale zlasti pri infrastrukturnih projektih zagotoviti, da ocene stroškov projekta temeljijo na posodobljenih podatkih o cenah, ki odražajo dejanske tržne cene, in da so postopki javnega naročanja pošteni in pregledni ter spodbujajo dejansko konkurenco. (c) Države članice bi morale pri določitvi zahtev in pregledov v zvezi s trajnostjo upoštevati dobo koristnosti naložb, ki prejmejo podporo. (d) Države članice bi morale določiti razumen rok za obravnavo vlog za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev in zahtevkov za plačilo in ga spoštovati.
107 The 32 audited projects generally delivered the expected physical outputs, such as new or rehabilitated roads, water supply and sewage systems, or improved school facilities. 
107 V splošnem je 32 revidiranih projektov prineslo pričakovane fizične izložke, kot so nove ali obnovljene ceste, vo-dovodni in kanalizacijski sistemi ali izboljšana infrastruktura v šolah.
However, the Court found, as in previous re-ports40, that information on project results was either missing or insufficiently reliable to draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of these measures. 
Vendar je Sodišče kot že v prejšnjih poročilih40 ugotovilo, da informacij o rezultatih projektov ni bilo na voljo ali pa niso bile dovolj zanesljive, da bi na njihovi podlagi lahko sklepali o uspešnosti teh ukrepov.
Meaningful data about results is either not collected or, when collected, is based on beneficiaries’ declarations or estimates which are not directly linked with the financed projects. 
Smiselni podatki o rezultatih se včasih ne zbirajo, kadar se, pa temeljijo na izjavah upravičencev ali ocenah, ki niso neposredno povezane s financiranim projektom.
108 Twenty of the 32 audited projects lacked measurable objectives and targets. 
108 Dvajset od 32 revidiranih projektov ni imelo merljivih ciljev in ciljnih vrednosti.
Where measurable objectives could be identified, there was little or no assurance concerning the reliability of the reported data and limited evidence of positive results for the few projects for which result data was available. 
Kadar je bilo merljive cilje mogoče opredeliti, o zanesljivosti podatkov, o katerih se je poročalo, ni bilo veliko zagotovil ali pa zagotovil sploh ni bilo, za tistih nekaj projektov, pri katerih so bili podatki o rezultatih na voljo, pa ni bilo veliko dokazov o pozitivnih rezultatih.
For example, several projects aiming to improve the quality of life of rural populations reported the total number of people living in a commune as the ‘population in rural areas benefiting from improved services’; however, the new facilities built, such as roads in remote areas, had only a limited number of users (see paragraphs 77 to 83). 
Na primer, pri več projektih s ciljem izboljšanja kakovosti življenja podeželskega prebivalstva je bilo kot število ljudi, ki imajo koristi od izboljšanih storitev, navedeno celotno prebivalstvo občine, čeprav je imela novozgrajena infrastruktura, kot so na primer ceste na oddaljenih območjih, samo omejeno število uporabnikov (glej odstavke 77 do 83).
39 See Special Report No 22/2014. 
39 Glej Posebno poročilo št. 22/2014.
40 See Special Reports Nos 8/2012, 1/2013, 6/2013 and 12/2013. 
40 Glej posebna poročila št. 8/2012, 1/2013, 6/2013 in 12/2013.
The Commission has proposed changes for the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Zaključki in priporočila 49 109 Komisija je za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 predlagala spremembe.
However, weaknesses in the quality of the indicators and (a) the late start of the implementation of the measures are likely to affect the monitoring and evaluation process (see paragraphs 84 to 89). 
Vendar bodo slabosti v zvezi s kakovostjo kazalnikov in zamude pri začetku izvajanja ukrepov zelo verjetno vplivale na postopek spremljanja in vrednotenja (glej odstavke 84 do 89).
In the absence of timely, relevant and reliable information on results, decisions on future policy direction and how to best achieve the objectives set for infrastructure investments in rural areas are hampered and the Commission’s ambition to manage the budget by results ensuring that every euro is spent wisely becomes more difficult to attain. 
Pomanjkanje pravočasnih, ustreznih in zanesljivih informacij o rezultatih omejuje odločitve o prihodnji usmeritvi politike in o tem, kako najbolje doseči zastavljene cilje na področju naložb v infrastrukturo na podeželskih območjih, težje pa je izpolniti tudi željo Komisije, da bi proračun upravljala na podlagi rezultatov, tako da bi bil vsak evro pametno porabljen,.
This Report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mr Augustyn KUBIK, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 16 December 2015. For the Court of Auditors Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA (b) Member States should ensure that clear, specific objectives are set for the projects to which funds are committed. 
Te informacije bi morale omogočati, da se oblikujejo zaključki o učinkovitosti in uspešnosti porabljenih sredstev in opredelijo ukrepi in vrste infrastrukturnih projektov, ki največ prispevajo k ciljem EU, ter služiti kot trdna podlaga za izboljšanje upravljanja ukrepov. (b) Države članice naj zagotovijo, da so za projekte, katerim so namenjena sredstva, določeni jasni, specifični cilji.
Objectives should be quantified where possible to facilitate the execution and monitoring of the projects and to provide useful feedback for the managing authorities. President 
Če je to mogoče, je treba cilje količinsko opredeliti, da se olajša izvedba in spremljanje projektov in da se zagotovijo uporabne povratne informacije za organe upravljanja.
Annexes 50 EU funds for infrastructure measures 125, 321, 322 and 323 — programmed and spent in the 2007-2013 programming period million euro 3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 DE PL RO ES IT BG EL FR PT CZ HU SK AT UK NL LT LV SE FI EE SI DK MT CY IE BE LU Programmed expenditure 2007-2013 Realised expenditure (as at March 2014) Source: European Court of Auditors’ compilation on the basis of data provided on the website of the European Network for Rural Development: financial and physical indicators (http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/policy-in-action/rural-development-policy-in-figures/ rdp-monitoring-indicator-tables/financial-and-physical-indicators/en/financial-and-physical-indicators_en.html). 
Za Računsko sodišče Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA Predsednik Prilogi 50 Programsko načrtovana in porabljena sredstva EU za infrastrukturne ukrepe 125, 321, 322 in 323 v programskem obdobju 2007–2013 v milijonih EUR 3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 DE PL RO ES IT BG EL FR PT CZ HU SK AT UK NL LT LV SE FI EE SI DK MT CY IE BE LU programsko načrtovani odhodki 2007–2013 izvršeni odhodki (marec 2014) Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov s spletne strani Evropske mreže za razvoj podeželja: finančni in fizični kazalniki (http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/policy-in-action/rural-development-policy-in-figures/rdp-monitoring-indicator-tables/ financial-and-physical-indicators/en/financial-and-physical-indicators_en.html).
Annexes 51 Overview of projects audited Member State Measure Project description Eligible costs (rounded, euro) RDP aid as % of eligible costs Delays (months) Funding date Works end date Measurable targets for project results? 
Prilogi 51 Pregled revidiranih projektov Država članica Ukrep Opis projekta Upravičeni stroški (zao-kroženi, v EUR) Pomoč v okviru programa razvoja podeželja kot % upravičenih stroškov Zamude (v mesecih) Datum financiranja Datum zaključka gradbenih del Merljive ciljne vrednosti pri rezultatih projekta?
Annexes 52 Member State Measure Project description Eligible costs (rounded, euro) RDP aid as % of eligible costs Delays (months) Funding date Works end date Measurable targets for project results? 
Prilogi 52 Država članica Ukrep Opis projekta Upravičeni stroški (zao-kroženi, v EUR) Pomoč v okviru programa razvoja podeželja kot % upravičenih stroškov Zamude (v mesecih) Datum financiranja Datum zaključka gradbenih del Merljive ciljne vrednosti pri rezultatih projekta?
Annexes 53 Member State Measure Project description Eligible costs (rounded, euro) RDP aid as % of eligible costs Delays (months) Funding date Works end date Measurable targets for project results? 
Prilogi 53 Država članica Ukrep Opis projekta Upravičeni stroški (zao-kroženi, v EUR) Pomoč v okviru programa razvoja podeželja kot % upravičenih stroškov Zamude (v mesecih) Datum financiranja Datum zaključka gradbenih del Merljive ciljne vrednosti pri rezultatih projekta?
Project results at the date of the audit visit (Oct. 2014-Feb. 
Rezultati projekta na dan revizijskega obiska (okt. 2014 do feb. 2015) 125 izboljšanje črpalke za protipoplavno zaščito 800 000 75 % 5 17.
2015) 125 Improving pumping sta‐ tion to protect from flood 800 000 75 % 5 17.11.2010 25.6.2012 To improve flood protection for an area of 320 ha Better flood protec‐ tion for 320 ha 321 Reconstruc‐ tion and extension of a sewage treatment plant 2 500 000 40 % — 16.12.2009 28.8.2012 To meet legal water quality standards 172 new users reported, however no supporting evidence provided; drop in utilisation rate from 81 % in 2012 to 71 % in 2014; legal water quality standards met 321 Building 4.5 km of water supply and 2.8 km of sewerage network 300 000 75 % — 11.8.2011 9.8.2012 No 160 users (water supply) and 150 users (sewerage) reported, however no supporting evidence provided 321 Building 8.9 km of sew‐ erage network and repairing 1.7 km of water supply network 800 000 50 % 2 16.12.2009 31.12.2012 No 48 new users reported, however no supporting evidence provided 322/323 Renovat‐ ing cultural centre, park‐ ing area and equipment for football pitch 95 000 75 % — 14.8.2009 31.12.2011 No Not quantified Poland Annex II 
11. 2009 28. 8.
Annexes 54 Member State Measure Project description Eligible costs (rounded, euro) RDP aid as % of eligible costs Delays (months) Funding date Works end date Measurable targets for project results? 
Prilogi 54 Država članica Ukrep Opis projekta Upravičeni stroški (zao-kroženi, v EUR) Pomoč v okviru programa razvoja podeželja kot % upravičenih stroškov Zamude (v mesecih) Datum financiranja Datum zaključka gradbenih del Merljive ciljne vrednosti pri rezultatih projekta?
Project results at the date of the audit visit (Oct. 2014-Feb. 
Rezultati projekta na dan revizijskega obiska (okt. 2014 do feb. 2015) 125 popravilo 7,4 km ceste 800 000 100 % 2 1.
Annexes 55 Member State Measure Project description Eligible costs (rounded, euro) RDP aid as % of eligible costs Delays (months) Funding date Works end date Measurable targets for project results? 
Prilogi 55 Država članica Ukrep Opis projekta Upravičeni stroški (zao-kroženi, v EUR) Pomoč v okviru programa razvoja podeželja kot % upravičenih stroškov Zamude (v mesecih) Datum financiranja Datum zaključka gradbenih del Merljive ciljne vrednosti pri rezultatih projekta?
Reply of the 56 Commission Executive summary III The Member States were encouraged to include in their rural development programmes (RDPs) the most important rural areas to be developed. 
Odgovori 56 Komisije Povzetek III Države članice so bile pozvane, naj v svoje programe razvoja podeželja vključijo najpomembnejša podeželska območja, ki jih je treba razviti.
The RDPs had to identify the areas where the use of EU support for rural development adds the most value. 
V programih razvoja podeželja je bilo treba določiti območja, na katerih bi podpora EU za razvoj podeželja ustvarila največjo dodano vrednost.
The Member States had to choose the most relevant operations to be funded. 
Države članice so morale izbrati najustreznejše dejavnosti za financiranje.
The EAFRD has permitted the funding of investments which otherwise may have not been funded. III First indent In the 2007-2013 programming period, the Member States were requested to justify their investment priorities based on a SWOT analysis of needs. 
III, prva alinea V programskem obdobju 2007–2013 so morale države članice na podlagi analize potreb po metodi prednosti, pomanjkljivosti, priložnosti in nevarnosti (v nadaljevanju: SWOT) upravičiti svoje prednostne naložbe.
Provisions concerning strategic programming and an effective coordination in the use of different funds have been strengthened in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
V programskem obdobju 2014–2020 so bile okrepljene določbe, ki se nanašajo na strateško načrtovanje in uspešno usklajevanje pri uporabi različnih skladov.
The risk of deadweight has to be considered on a case by case basis, depending on the type of investments concerned and local investment conditions. 
Tveganje mrtvih izgub je treba obravnavati za vsak primer posebej glede na vrsto zadevnih naložb in lokalne pogoje za naložbe.
III Second indent Selection criteria and selection procedures are defined by the Member States. 
III, druga alinea Izbirna merila in izbirne postopke določijo države članice.
During the 2007-2013 programming period, the Commission reminded on several occasions the Member States of the obligation to set up genuine selection criteria and to correctly apply the selection procedures. 
Komisija je med programskim obdobjem 2007–2013 večkrat opozorila države članice na obveznost, da določijo pristna izbirna merila in pravilno izvajajo izbirne postopke.
In order to help the Member States to avoid weaknesses in the application of selection criteria the Commission produced guidance on eligibility and selection applicable to the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Komisija je za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 pripravila smernice za upravičenost in izbor, da bi državam članicam pomagala preprečiti slabosti pri uporabi izbirnih meril.
III Third indent Information available through the monitoring and evaluation system (e.g. mid-term evaluations), while incomplete and possibly not always fully reliable, did provide a good overview of the implementation of RDPs. 
III, tretja alinea Informacije, ki so bile na voljo prek sistema spremljanja in vrednotenja (npr. vmesnega vrednotenja), so bile nepopolne in morda ne vedno popolnoma zanesljive, a so zagotovile dober pregled nad izvajanjem programov razvoja podeželja.
However, for multiannual programmes certain results, such as gross value added, and impacts can only be properly assessed well into the programming period and afterwards. 
Vendar se pri večletnih programih nekateri rezultati, kot so bruto dodana vrednost in vplivi, lahko ustrezno ocenijo šele v poznejši fazi programskega obdobja in po njem.
Such effects can only be measured after sufficient time since the implementation has passed. 
Takšne učinke je mogoče izmeriti šele po izteku določenega časa od izvedbe.
For most interventions, this was not yet the case at the moment of the mid-term evaluation. 
Za večino posredovanj v času vmesnega vrednotenja pa to še ni držalo.
Consequently, certain results and impacts of the programmes could not yet be measured, unlike the expenditure or outputs. 
Zato nekaterih rezultatov in vplivov programov ni bilo mogoče izmeriti v nasprotju z izdatki ali izložki.
IV The Commission issued basic guidance for the 2007-2013 programming period to help the Member States to prepare their RDPs. 
IV Komisija je objavila osnovne smernice za programsko obdobje 2007–2013, da bi državam članicam pomagala pri pripravi programov razvoja podeželja.
As regards the 2014-2020 programming period, the Commission has issued more extensive guidance providing information on eligibility conditions, selection criteria and investments. 
Komisija je za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 izdala obsežnejše smernice z informacijami o pogojih za upravičenost, izbirnih merilih in naložbah.
V (a) This recommendation is for the Member States. 
V (a) To priporočilo velja za države članice.
V (b) The Commission accepts this recommendation and has started to implement it. 
V (b) Komisija sprejema to priporočilo in ga je začela izvajati.