natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
22 In line with Article 86.1 of the Italian public procurement law 163/2006, this procedure consists of four steps: (1) excluding the top and bottom 10 % of the offers received; (2) calculating the average of the ‘rebates’ (i.e. discounts as compared to the estimated value of the contract) of the remaining offers; (3) adding to this average the variance of the rebates which are above the average; and (4) awarding the tender to the offer proposing a rebate just under the value of the rebate as calculated after step 3. Box 11 
22 V skladu s členom 86.1 italijanskega zakona o javnem naročanju 163/2006 je ta postopek sestavljen iz štirih korakov: (1) izključi se zgornjih in spodnjih 10 % prejetih ponudb; (2) izračuna se povprečje popustov (tj. znižanj glede na ocenjeno vrednost pogodbe) pri ostalih ponudbah; (3) k temu povprečju se prišteje odmik popustov, ki so nad povprečjem; (4) naročilo se odda ponudbi, pri kateri je popust tik pod vrednostjo popusta, izračunanega po koraku 3. Okvir 11
Observations 31 Sustainability-related requirements did not take into account the useful life of the investments 55 The sustainability of financed investments is a key factor in achieving project and wider RDP objectives. 
Opažanja 31 Pri zahtevah v zvezi s trajnostjo ni bila upoštevana doba koristnosti naložb 55 Trajnost financiranih naložb je ključni dejavnik pri doseganju projektnih in širših ciljev programa razvoja podeželja.
Sustainability is a particular concern with infrastructure investments due to their long expected useful life23, the large number of users, the need to ensure continued access to public services and the high costs associated with both the initial investment and subsequent maintenance. 
Trajnost je še posebej pomembna pri infrastrukturnih naložbah zaradi njihove dolge pričakovane dobe koristnosti23, velikega števila uporabnikov, potrebe, da se zagotovi neprekinjen dostop do javnih storitev, ter visokih stroškov, ki so povezani z začetno naložbo in poznejšim vzdrževanjem.
Various studies have shown that the costs of restoring infrastructure that has fallen into disrepair are much higher than the costs of retaining initial quality levels24. 
Različne študije so pokazale, da so stroški obnove infrastrukture, ki je v slabem stanju, precej višji od stroškov ohranjanja začetne ravni kakovo-sti24.
The benefits of adequate maintenance planning extend beyond financial considerations, as they also have an impact on the quality of life and safety standards. 
Koristi ustreznega načrtovanja vzdrževanja presegajo finančne vidike, saj vplivajo tudi na kakovost življenja in varnostne standarde.
The existence of an adequate maintenance plan and a dedicated budget are therefore vital to the effectiveness of these investments. 
Ustrezen načrt vzdrževanja in namenski proračun sta zato bistvenega pomena za uspešnost teh naložb.
56 None of the audited Member States had asked beneficiaries to submit a detailed maintenance plan setting out the regular and extraordinary maintenance requirements and costs. 
56 Nobena od revidiranih držav članic ni od upravičencev zahtevala, naj predložijo podroben načrt vzdrževanja, v katerem bi bile navedene redne in izredne zahteve in stroški v zvezi z vzdrževanjem.
Beneficiaries were not required to earmark funds for maintenance or to indicate the financing sources to be used. 
Upravičencem ni bilo treba določiti namenskih sredstev za vzdrževanje ali navesti virov financiranja, ki naj bi jih uporabili.
57 In Romania, the national audit office highlighted the potential unsustainability of RDP-funded investments in social and cultural infrastructure, as, once the project is complete, the beneficiaries may have difficulties in financing the related activities from the local budget. 
57 V Romuniji je nacionalni revizijski urad opozoril na morebitno pomanjkanje trajnosti pri naložbah v socialno in kulturno infrastrukturo, ki se financirajo v okviru programa razvoja podeželja, saj bi lahko imeli upravičenci po dokončanju projekta težave s financiranjem z njo povezanih dejavnosti iz lokalnega proračuna.
This risk was subsequently confirmed, as the beneficiaries of more than half of the 191 projects checked by the paying agency in 2014 could not prove that the activities planned were actually carried out following the completion of the project. 
To tveganje je bilo pozneje potrjeno, saj upravičenci več kot polovice od 191 projektov, ki jih je plačilna agencija preverila v letu 2014, niso mogli dokazati, da so bile načrtovane dejavnosti po zaključku projekta dejansko izvedene.
58 The risk that project outputs and results may not be sustainable was also found in the case of rural roads in Italy (Sicily), where the managing authority intended to use the 2014-2020 RDP to support the rehabilitation costs for roads which had been built or rehabilitated using EU funds just some 10 years earlier25. 
58 Tveganje, da izložki in rezultati projekta morda niso trajnostni, je bilo ugotovljeno tudi v primeru podeželskih cest v Italiji (Sicilija), kjer je nameraval organ upravljanja iz programa razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2014–2020 financirati stroške za obnovo cest, ki so bile zgrajene ali obnovljene s sredstvi EU le približno 10 let prej25.
This suggests that roads may have deteriorated substantially in a relatively short timeframe due to a lack of adequate maintenance. 
To pomeni, da so se ceste zaradi nezadostnega vzdrževanja v sorazmerno kratkem obdobju zelo poslabšale.
23 In its guide to the cost-benefit analysis of investment projects (published in July 2008), the Commission indicated that for the majority of infrastructures, the time horizon over which financial forecasts should be made, and which should not exceed the economic useful life of the project, is at least 20 years. 
23 Komisija v svojih navodilih za analizo stroškov in koristi naložbenih projektov (objavljenih julija 2008) navaja, da traja obdobje, za katerega je treba narediti finančne napovedi in ki ne sme presegati dobe ekonomske koristnosti projekta, za večino infrastrukture najmanj 20 let.
For example, the guide sets the recommended time horizon for road projects at 25 years and for water infrastructure at 30 years. 
V navodilih je na primer priporočeno obdobje za cestne projekte 25 let in za vodno infrastrukturo 30 let.
24 Examples of such studies are given in footnote 13. 
24 Primeri takih študij so navedeni v opombi 14.
25 This possibility was included in the draft RDP for the programming period 2014-2020, sent to the Commission in July 2014 (section M04 — Investments in physical assets (Article 17), page 221). 
25 Ta možnost je bila navedena v osnutku programa razvoja podeželja za programsko obdobje 2014–2020, ki je bil poslan Komisiji julija 2014 (Oddelek M04 - Naložbe v osnovna sredstva (člen 17), stran 221)
Observations 32 59 To ensure the durability of investments, the rural development regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, requires Member States to recover the EAFRD contribution if an investment project undergoes a substantial modification that ‘affects its nature or implementation conditions’ within 5 years (known as ‘commitment period’) from the managing authority’s funding decision26. 
Opažanja 32 59 Da bi se zagotovila trajnost naložb, uredba o razvoju podeželja št. 1698/2005 državam članicam nalaga, da izterjajo prispevek EKSRP, če pri naložbenem projektu pride do bistvene spremembe, ki „vpliva na [...] naravo ali pogoje izvajanja” v roku petih let (t.i. obdobje prevzema obveznosti) od sklepa o financiranju, ki jo sprejme organ upravljanja26.
However, this requirement is not differentiated by type of investment. 
Vendar se ta zahteva ne razlikuje glede na vrsto naložbe.
Only Germany (Saxony), Italy (Sicily) and Romania specified longer commitment periods for certain types of investment, although the limited timeframe of ex post checks weakened the incentive on beneficiaries to respect their commitments (see Box 12). 
Samo Nemčija (Saška), Italija (Sicilija) in Romunija so za nekatere vrste naložb določile daljše obdobje prevzema obveznosti, čeprav upravičenci zaradi krajšega obdobja naknadnih pregledov niso imeli veliko spodbude za spoštovanje svojih obveznosti (glej okvir 12).
26 Article 72 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
26 Člen 72 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005.
Good practices implemented by Member States to ensure the sustainability of infrastructure investments and their limitations Germany (Saxony) In the 2007-2013 programming period, there were differentiated commitment periods27 which ranged between 5 and 20 years after the completion of the project, depending on the type of project as well as on the total eligible costs. 
Dobre prakse za zagotovitev trajnosti infrastrukturnih naložb, ki jih izvajajo države članice, in njihove omejitve Nemčija (Saška) V programskem obdobju 2007–2013 so obstajala različna obdobja prevzema obveznosti27, ki so trajala od pet do dvajset let po zaključku projekta, odvisno od vrste projekta in od skupnih upravičenih stroškov.
These commitment periods were taken into account in the risk assessment leading to the sampling of projects for the ex post checks, making it more likely that older projects would be sampled. 
Ta obdobja prevzema obveznosti so bila upoštevana pri oceni tveganja, po kateri se izvaja vzorčenje projektov za naknadne preglede, zaradi česar je bilo bolj verjetno, da bodo v vzorcu starejši projekti.
Another element favouring sustainable investments in schools was the requirement that applicants (com-munes) submit with their application a written confirmation from the Ministry of Culture and Sport that the school concerned by the modernisation project is expected to remain in operation for 5 or 10 years. 
Trajnostne naložbe v šole so dobile prednost tudi zaradi zahteve, da morajo vlagatelji (občine) skupaj z vlogo predložiti pisno potrdilo ministrstva za kulturo in šport, da bo šola, na kateri se je izvajal projekt posodobitve, po pričakovanjih delovala še 5 ali 10 let.
Romania As part of the eligibility conditions for measure 125 (that supports farm and forest roads and irrigation infrastructure), beneficiaries were required to commit to maintaining and repairing the financed infrastructure throughout its entire useful life. 
Romunija V skladu s pogoji za upravičenost v okviru ukrepa 125 (ki podpira kmetijske in gozdne ceste ter namakalno infrastrukturo) so se morali upravičenci zavezati, da bodo financirano infrastrukturo vzdrževali in popravljali v njeni celotni dobi koristnosti.
Ex post checks during which this commitment could be checked are, however, only performed for up to 5 years after the date of the grant agreement. 
Vendar so se naknadni pregledi, pri katerih bi bilo mogoče preveriti izpolnjevanje te obveznosti, izvajali samo v obdobju do 5 let po datumu iz sporazuma o dodelitvi nepovratnih sredstev.
27 These commitment periods have been revised downwards in the 2014-2020 programming period to the standard 5-year period stated in 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 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 
27 Ta obdobja prevzema obveznosti so bila v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 zmanjšana na standardno obdobje 5 let, kot je določeno v členu 71 Uredbe (EU) št. 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 ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
Box 12 Observations 33 60 The audited Member States generally applied the 5-year requirement and used the ex post checks28 to verify that the beneficiaries had respected their commitments. 
Okvir 12 Opažanja 33 60 Revidirane države članice so večinoma uporabljale petletno zahtevo in z naknadnimi pregledi28 preverjale, ali so upravičenci izpolnili svoje zaveze.
Each year the ex post checks cover at least 1 % of the eligible public expenditure for investment operations for which the final payment has been made from the EAFRD. 
Z naknadnimi pregledi je vsako leto zajet vsaj 1 % upravičenih javnih odhodkov za naložbene dejavnosti, za katere so bila končna plačila izvršena iz EKSRP.
However, it is possible for the 1 % to be reached by checks on just one project. 
Vendar je 1 % možno doseči s pregledi enega samega projekta.
In addition, as in Poland and Romania the commitment period of 5 years was counted from the date of the funding decision, it was reduced in practice to much less time after the completion of the project. 
Poleg tega se je na Poljskem in v Romuniji obdobje prevzema obveznosti petih let štelo od datuma sklepa o financiranju, zato je bilo v praksi skrajšano na veliko manj časa po zaključku projekta.
For example, seven out of the 10 projects audited in these two Member States were completed more than 2 years after the funding decision. 
Na primer, sedem od desetih projektov, ki so bili revidirani v teh dveh državah članicah, je bilo zaključenih več kot dve leti po datumu sklepa o financiranju.
So, the ‘5 years’ requirement and the corresponding checks had a reduced relevance in practice in carrying out their function to ensure the sustainability of the projects. 
Tako se je pomen petletne zahteve in z njo povezanih pregledov, s katerimi naj bi se zagotavljala trajnost projektov, v praksi zmanjšal.
Long delays in the administrative process impacted the measures’ efficiency and effectiveness 61 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. 
Dolge zamude pri upravnem postopku so vplivale na učinkovitost in uspešnost ukrepov 61 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.
62 Three (Italy (Sicily), Romania and Poland) out of the five audited Member States set time limits for processing project applications and final payment claims. 
62 Tri revidirane države članice (Italija (Sicilija), Romunija in Poljska) od petih so določile roke za obdelavo projektnih vlog in zahtevkov za končno plačilo.
These limits were generally between 1 and 4 months. 
Ti so bili običajno od enega do štirih mesecev.
63 The time limits set by the Member States for processing grant applications were exceeded for most of the measures audited (see Figure 5)29. 
63 Pri večini revidiranih ukrepov so bili roki držav članic za obravnavanje vlog za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev preseženi (glej sliko 5)29.
In Germany (Saxony), Poland and Romania, it took30 from 3.5 to 9 months to process grant applications, while the Italian (Sicilian) authorities needed around 16 months to process applications under measures 125 and 321, with extreme cases lasting more than 3 years. 
V Nemčiji (Saška), na Poljskem in v Romuniji je obravnava vlog za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev trajala30 od 3,5 do 9 mesecev, organi v Italiji (Sicilija) pa so za obravnavo vlog v okviru ukrepov 125 in 321 potrebovali približno 16 mesecev, v skrajnih primerih pa več kot tri leta.
This was mainly due to the excessive time required to perform the required checks on the eligibility of the beneficiaries. 
Do tega je prišlo v glavnem zato, ker so zahtevani pregledi upravičenosti morebitnih upravičencev trajali predolgo.
64 Payment claims were generally processed quicker than grant applications; however notable delays were again incurred in Italy (Sicily) (see Figure 6). 
64 Zahtevki za plačilo so bili v splošnem obravnavani hitreje kot vloge za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev, kljub temu pa so v Italiji (Sicilija) spet nastale velike zamude (glej sliko 6).
28 Made in accordance with Article 30 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 
28 Izvajajo se v skladu s členom 30 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1975/2006 z dne 7. decembra 2006 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za izvajanje Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
29 For Spain (Extremadura), it was not possible to calculate such statistics as there was no overview data available for all approved projects under the audited measures. 
29 V primeru Španije (Ekstremadura) takšnih statističnih podatkov ni bilo mogoče izračunati, saj za vse odobrene projekte v okviru revidiranih ukrepov ni bilo na voljo preglednih podatkov.
30 Median value: a value in an ordered set of values below and above which there is an equal number of values (or which is the arithmetic mean of the two middle values if there is no middle number). 
30 Mediana: vrednost v nekem zaporedju vrednosti, nad in pod katero je enako število vrednosti (ali aritmetična sredina dveh srednjih vrednosti, če ni srednjega števila).
Observations 34 Processing of grant applications (median value, in months) Germany (Saxony) Italy (Sicily) Po la n d Romania * The information presented for Italy (Sicily) under measure 321 only applies to the audited sub-measure, ‘Azione 2’; in Romania, measure 321 is implemented jointly with measure 322. ** In Poland, measure 322 is implemented jointly with measure 323. 
Opažanja 34 Obdelava vlog za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev (mediana, v mesecih) Nemčija (Saška) Italija (Sicilija) Poljska Romunija * Informacije za Italijo (Sicilija) v okviru ukrepa 321 se nanašajo samo na revidiran podukrep „Azione 2”; v Romuniji se ukrep 321 izvaja skupaj z ukrepom 322. ukrep 125 ukrep 321 * ukrep 322 ** 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 v mesecih ** Na Poljskem se ukrep 322 izvaja skupaj z ukrepom 323.
Source: European Court of Auditors, based on data provided by Member States. 
Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov, ki so jih zagotovile države članice.
Processing of payment applications (median value, in months) Measure 125 Measure 321 * Measure 322 ** Germany (Saxony) Italy (Sicily)* Po la n d Romania Measure 125 Measure 321 Measure 322 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 months 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 months * In Italy (Sicily), only the data regarding the processing of final payment requests was used for the calculation; also in Italy (Sicily), information regarding measure 321 was not available, as none of the approved projects had received its final payment by December 2014. Source: European Court of Auditors, based on data provided by Member States. 
Obdelava zahtevkov za plačila (mediana, v mesecih) Nemčija (Saška) Italija (Sicilija)* Poljska Romunija ukrep 125 ukrep 321 ukrep 322 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 v mesecih * Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov, ki so jih zagotovile države članice. V Italiji (Sicilija) so bili za izračun uporabljeni samo podatki v zvezi z obravnavo zahtevkov za končno plačilo; prav tako v Italiji (Sicilija) ni bilo na voljo informacij v okviru ukrepa 321, saj do decembra 2014 nobeden od odobrenih projektov še ni prejel končnega plačila.
Figure 6 Figure 5 
Slika 6 Slika 5
Observations 35 65 The audit found that Romania had devised a good practice in addressing the main causes of delays and limiting the administrative burden on the applicant. 
Opažanja 35 65 Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da je Romunija oblikovala dobro prakso za odpravljanje glavnih vzrokov za zamude in zmanjšanje upravnega bremena za vlagatelje.
In order to speed up the project submission and evaluation process, in the 2014-2020 programming period the paying agency will allow applications to be submitted online in full (including all the supporting documents), on an ongoing basis, and selection reports will be published at shorter intervals than in the previous programming period. 
Da bi pospešila postopek predložitve in vrednotenja projektov, bo plačilna agencija v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 omogočila, da lahko vlagatelji vloge redno vlagajo v celoti prek spleta (vključno z vsemi dokazili), poročila o izbiri pa bodo objavljena v krajših časovnih pres-ledkih kot v prejšnjem programskem obdobju.
The Commission started to systematically follow up weaknesses and related Member States' action plans late in the programming period 66 In the 2007-2013 programming period, the Commission checked, mainly through its conformity audits, whether Member States were complying with the legal requirements of applying selection criteria, verifying the reasonableness of costs and following public procurement rules. 
Komisija je začela sistematično nadalje spremljati slabosti in z njimi povezane akcijske načrte držav članic pozno v programskem obdobju 66 V programskem obdobju 2007–2013 je Komisija predvsem z revizijami skladnosti preverjala, ali države članice spoštujejo pravne zahteve za uporabo izbirnih meril, preverjajo razumnost stroškov in upoštevajo pravila javnega naročanja.
The scope of the Commission’s audits did not include an examination of performance aspects. 
Komisija v okviru svojih revizij ni pregledovala vidikov smotrnosti.
67 Consequently, the Commission’s audits identified only a few of the above weaknesses — mainly those with respect to the application of public procurement rules in Romania, which gave rise to a financial correction31 in 2014. 
67 Zato so revizije Komisije odkrile samo nekaj zgoraj omenjenih slabosti: predvsem tiste, ki se nanašajo na uporabo pravil javnega naročanja v Romuniji, zaradi katerih je bil v letu 2014 izveden finančni popravek31.
Only in 2013 did the Commission start to systematically follow up on actions taken by Member States to address the root causes of errors in rural development measures, including errors related to the project selection system, checks on the reasonableness of costs and public procurement. 
Komisija je šele leta 2013 začela sistematično nadalje spremljati ukrepe, ki so jih države članice sprejele, da bi odpravile temeljne vzroke napak pri ukrepih na področju razvoja podeželja, vključno z napakami v zvezi s sistemom izbire projektov, pregledi razumnosti stroškov in javnim naročanjem.
As a result of this exercise, out of the Member States audited, only Italy (Sicily) and Romania have introduced or are in the process of developing new procedures that intend to tackle some of the weaknesses identified. 
V odziv na to spremljanje sta od revidiranih držav članic samo Italija (Sicilija) in Romunija uvedli ali trenutno razvijata nove postopke, ki naj bi odpravili nekatere ugotovljene slabosti.
However, these changes arrived too late to have an influence on the bulk of the expenditure incurred in the 2007-2013 programming period. 
Vendar so bile te spremembe uvedene prepozno, da bi imele učinek na večji del odhodkov, ki so nastali v programskem obdobju 2007–2013.
68 Recognising past problems, the Commission has made changes for the 2014-2020 programming period, which are intended to improve the situation. 
68 Komisija je na podlagi ugotovljenih problemov v preteklosti v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 uvedla spremembe, ki naj bi izboljšale razmere.
69 On project selection, it is an explicit requirement for the 2014-2020 RDPs to include the principles guiding the establishment of selection criteria. 
69 Pri izbiri projektov je to izrecna zahteva, da se v programe razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2014–2020 vključijo načela o oblikovanju izbirnih meril.