natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3.11 and 3.12. The Commission notes that most of the quan­ tifiable errors are relatively small in financial terms and mainly concern small differences in the re-measurement of parcels carried out by the Court (see paragraph 3.12); indeed, 42 of the errors found by the Court concern very small differences in parcel re-measurement (24 errors at below 2 %). 
3.11 in 3.12 Komisija opaža, da je imela večina količinsko opredeljivih napak finančno relativno majhen vpliv in da so se v glavnem nanašale na majhne razlike pri ponovni meritvi parcel, ki jo je izvedlo Sodišče (glej odstavek 3.12); 42 napak, ki jih je ugoto­ vilo Sodišče, tako zadeva zelo majhne razlike pri ponovni meritvi parcel (stopnja napake je bila v 24 primerih nižja od 2 %).
3.11. Of the 70 transactions affected by errors 60 (86 %) were affected by quantifiable errors, concerning accuracy 45 (75 %), eligibility 14 (23 %) and occurrence 1 (2 %). 
3.11 Od70transakcij,nakateresovplivalenapake,sona 60 (86 %) vplivale količinsko opredeljive napake v zvezi s točnostjo (45 (75 %)), upravičenostjo (14 (23 %)) in nastankom (1 (2 %)).
The most frequent accuracy error relates to area over-declarations, most of which amount individually to less than 5 %. 
Največ napak v zvezi s točnostjo se nanaša na prijave prevelikih površin, od katerih jih večina posamezno znaša manj kot 5 %.
The larger accuracy errors relate to cases where the eligibility of permanent pasture has been incorrectly assessed and recorded in the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) (see also paragraph 3.20). _____________ (15) The Court calculates its estimate of error from a representative statistical sample. 
Večje napake v zvezi s točnostjo se nanašajo na primere, ko je bila upravičenost trajnega pašnika narobe ocenjena in evidentirana v identifikacijskem sistemu za zemljišča (LPIS) (glej tudi odstavek 3.20). _____________ (15) Sodišče svojo oceno napake izračuna na podlagi reprezentativnega statističnega vzorca.
The Court has 95 % confidence that the rate of error in the population lies between LEL 1,1 % and UEL 4,7 % (the lower and upper error limits respectively). EN C 344/78 Official Journal of the European Union T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S 12.11.2012 T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S Example 3.1 Over-declaration of area (example of accuracy error) In one Member State, reference parcels classified as permanent pasture are considered to be fully eligible even if substantial parts are covered by rocks or dense bushes rendering the areas ineligible. 
Sodišče je 95-odstotno prepričano, da je stopnja napake v populaciji med 1,1 % in 4,7 % (spodnja oz. zgornja meja napake). SL C 344/78 Uradni list Evropske unije U G OT OV I T V E S O D I Š Č A 12.11.2012 O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E Primer 3.1 Prijava prevelikih površin (primer napake v zvezi s točnostjo) V eni državi članici referenčne parcele, klasificirane kot trajni pašniki, štejejo kot v celoti upravičene, čeprav so veliki deli pokriti s kamenjem ali gostim grmovjem, zaradi česar so te površine neupravičene.
The Court found in two transactions in this Member State over-declarations of 28 % and 36 % respectively. 
Sodišče je v tej državi članici odkrilo dve transakciji, od katerih je bila pri eni prijavljena za 28 % prevelika površina, pri drugi pa za 36 %.
Breach of public procurement rules (example of eligibility error) A promotion measure to encourage the consumption of milk was awarded to a domestic market operator without publication of the tendering procedure at EU level as required by EU and national legislation. 
Kršitev pravil za javno naročanje (primer napake v zvezi z upravičenostjo) Promocijski ukrep za spodbujanje uživanja mleka je bil dodeljen domačemu udeležencu na trgu brez objave postopka za oddajo javnega naročila na ravni EU, ki jo zahtevata zakonodaja EU in nacionalna zakonodaja.
This restricted the access to the contract for potential operators from other Member States and represents a serious failure to respect public procurement rules rendering the payment of the aid irregular. 
To je potencialnim udeležencem iz drugih držav omejilo dostop do pogodbe in predstavlja resno neupoštevanje pravil za javno naročanje, zato je izplačilo pomoči nepravilno.
Claim for non-existent animals (example of occurrence error) A farmer was granted a special premium for 150 sheep. 
Prijava neobstoječih živali (primer napake v zvezi z nastankom) Kmetu je bila odobrena posebna premija za 150 ovc.
The Court found that the beneficiary did not have any sheep. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da upravičenec nima nobene ovce.
Example 3.1 Over-declaration of area (example of accuracy error) The Commission is aware of the issues related to the eligibility of pasture areas in this Member State. 
Primer 3.1 Prijava prevelikih površin (primer napake v zvezi s točnostjo) Komisija se zaveda težav, povezanih z upravičenostjo pašnikov v tej državi članici.
National authorities were requested to act on this matter and presented the LPIS Improvement Plan in November 2010 including, notably, measures to implement the application of an eligibility coefficient to pasture parcels and to ensure systematic update of LPIS with the results of on-the-spot checks. 
Nacionalni organi so morali v povezavi s tem ukrepati ter so novembra 2010 predstavili načrt za izboljšanje sistema LPIS, ki med drugim vključuje ukrepe za uvedbo uporabe koeficienta upravičenosti za pašniške površine in zagotavljanje sistematičnega posodabljanja sistema LPIS z rezultati pregledov na kraju samem.
The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of this plan by the national authorities. 
Komisija bo še naprej spremljala, kako nacionalni organi izvajajo ta načrt.
Breach of public procurement rules (example of eligibility error) The Commission observes that the Member State does not share the Court’s finding. 
Kršitev pravil za oddajo javnega naročila (primer napake v zvezi z upravičenostjo) Komisija opaža, da se država članica ne strinja z ugotovitvijo Sodišča.
The Commission will assess whether and how to pursue the case, if necessary through the conformity clearance procedure, having regard also to the principle of proportionality. 
Komisija bo preučila, ali bo zadevo nadalje obravnavala in kako, če bi bilo to potrebno v okviru postopka potrditve skladnosti, pri tem pa bo upoštevala tudi načelo sorazmernosti.
Claim for non-existent animals (example of occurrence error) The national authorities are in the process of recovering the overpaid amounts and the Commission will follow this up. 
Prijava neobstoječih živali (primer napake v zvezi z nastankom) Nacionalni organi izvajajo postopke za izterjavo preplačanih zneskov, Komisija pa bo spremljala njihov napredek.
In addition, a clearance procedure will be launched in order to verify the conformity of the Member State’s management and control system. 
Poleg tega bo uveden postopek potrjevanja za preverjanje skladnosti upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemov države članice.
Example 3.2 — Example of a non-quantifiable error In one Member State the total value of entitlements allocated and recorded in the IACS database exceeded the ceiling provided for in EU legislation (16). 
Primer 3.2 – Primer količinsko neopredeljive napake V eni državi članici je skupna vrednost dodeljenih pravic, evidentiranih v podatkovni zbirki IAKS, presegala zgornjo mejo, ki jo določa zakonodaja EU (16).
Example 3.2 — Example of a non-quantifiable error The Commission notes that the Member State reduced payments to farmers and thereby respected the ceiling for all direct aid payments established by Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. 
Primer 3.2 – Primer količinsko neopredeljive napake Komisija opaža, da je država članica znižala plačila kmetom in s tem upoštevala zgornjo mejo za vsa izplačila neposredne pomoči, kot to določa Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 73/2009.
The Commission will assess information provided by the Court and on this basis decide on any follow-up. _____________ (16) The excess was more than 280 million euro, but in the absence of relevant information regarding the basis for allocating the entitlements the Court was unable to quantify the impact on the EU budget. 
Komisija bo preučila informacije Sodišča in se na njihovi podlagi odločila za nadaljnje ukrepe. _____________ (16) Presegala jo je za več kot 280 milijonov EUR, toda ker ni ustreznih informacij o podlagi za dodeljevanje pravic, Sodišče ni moglo količinsko opredeliti učinka na proračun EU.
EN 12.11.2012 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion C344/79 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S Cross compliance 3.13. Onthebasisofitsexaminationofselectedcross-compliance obligations (see paragraph 3.9, second indent) the Court found infringements in 22(17) of the 155 payments subject to these obligations (18). 
SL 12.11.2012 UradnilistEvropskeunije C344/79 U G O T OV I T V E S O D I Š Č A Navzkrižna skladnost 3.13 Sodišče je na podlagi izbranih obveznosti navzkrižne skladnosti (glej drugo alineo odstavka 3.9) ugotovilo kršitve pri 22 (17) od 155 plačil, za katera veljajo te obveznosti (18).
The errors found represent around 0,2 percentage points of the total error rate referred to in paragraph 3.10. 
Ugotovljene napake predstavljajo približno 0,2 odstotkovne točke celotne stopnje napake iz odstavka 3.10.
EFFECTIVENESS OF SYSTEMS Member States' systems relating to regularity of transactions 3.14. Annex 3.2 contains a summary of the results of the Court’s examination of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS)(19). 
USPEŠNOST SISTEMOV Sistemi držav članic v zvezi s pravilnostjo transakcij 3.14 V Prilogi 3.2 so povzeti rezultati pregleda integrira­ nega administrativnega in kontrolnega sistema (IAKS), ki ga je izvedlo Sodišče (19).
In all the six paying agencies examined, the Court found the IACS systems to be partially effective. 
Sodišče je za vseh šest pregledanih plačilnih agencij ugotovilo, da so sistemi IAKS delno uspešni.
3.15. TheCourt’sauditsshowthattheeffectivenessofIACS in the paying agencies audited is adversely affected by inac­ curate data in the various databases and incorrect adminis­ trative treatment of claims by the paying agencies. 
3.15 RevizijeSodiščakažejo,danauspešnostIAKSvrevi­ diranih plačilnih agencijah negativno vplivajo netočni podatki v različnih podatkovnih zbirkah in nepravilna administrativna obravnava zahtevkov, ki jo izvajajo plačilne agencije.
Furthermore, some serious systems weaknesses reported in previous annual reports still persist (see paragraphs 3.19 to 3.22). 3.13. 
Poleg tega so še vedno prisotne nekatere resne slabosti sistemov, o katerih se je poročalo v prejšnjih letnih poročilih (glej odstavke od 3.19 do 3.22).
T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S See reply to point 3.9. _____________ (17) 14 of the 22 cases affected the payment audited, while the remaining eight cases only affect future payments. 
3.13 O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E Glej odgovor na odstavek 3.9. _____________ (17) 14 od 22 primerov je vplivalo na revidirano plačilo, preostalih osem primerov pa vpliva le na prihodnja plačila.
(18) The most frequent cross-compliance infringements observed relate to no or insufficient storage capacity for nitrates of animal origin, nitrate output per hectare in excess of the allowed maximum threshold and lack of nutrient balance records. 
(18) Najpogostejše ugotovljene kršitve navzkrižne skladnosti se nana­ šajo na to, da ni bilo zmogljivosti za skladiščenje nitratov žival­ skega izvora ali pa jih ni bilo dovolj, da je bila presežena najvišja dovoljena meja nitratov na hektar, ter na pomanjkanje evidenc o uravnoteženosti hranil.
(19) These findings, except those concerning entitlements, apply also to area-related and animal-related rural development measures covered by IACS. 
(19) Te ugotovitve, razen tistih, ki zadevajo pravice, se nanašajo tudi na ukrepe za razvoj podeželja, povezane s površinami in živalmi, ki jih zajema IAKS.
The Commission considers that IACS, which accounts for 91 % of total EAGF expenditure, is generally an effective control system for limiting the risk of error or irregular expenditure. 
Komisija meni, da je IAKS, ki pokriva 91 % skupnih odhodkov EKJS, na splošno uspešen kontrolni sistem za omejevanje tveganja napak ali nepravilnih odhodkov.
The overall effectiveness and constant improvement of the IACS is confirmed by the results of the conformity audits which the Commission has carried out over the past years in all Member States and by the low error rate indicated in the control statistics which it receives from Member States. 
Splošno uspešnost in stalno izboljševanje sistema IAKS potrjujejo rezultati revizij skladnosti, ki jih je Komisija izvedla v preteklih letih v vseh državah članicah, in nizka stopnja napake, razvidna iz kontrolnih statističnih podatkov, ki jih predložijo države članice.
These statistics are verified and validated by the certification bodies and show a level of undue payments which is below the 2 % materiality threshold. 
Stati­ stični podatki, ki jih preverjajo in potrjujejo certifikacijski organi, kažejo, da je stopnja neupravičenih plačil nižja od 2-odstotnega praga pomembnosti.
Remaining deficiencies are generally of a lesser nature. 
Preostale pomanjkljivosti so na splošno manj pomembne.
Many of these deficiencies pertain to a rather limited scope, e.g. some kind of alpine pastures in Austria, and are not undermining seriously the effec­ tiveness of IACS. 
Številne imajo precej omejen vpliv, na primer pri posebnih vrstah alpskih pašnikov v Avstriji, zato ne spodkopavajo bistveno uspešnosti IAKS.
All these deficiencies are followed up through conformity clearance procedures which ensure that the risk to the EU budget is adequately covered. 
Vse te pomanjkljivosti se nadalje obravnavajo s postopki potr­ ditve skladnosti, ki zagotavljajo, da je tveganje za proračun EU ustrezno krito.
Given that the deficiencies the Court detected in Austria are of a minor nature, the Commission considers the supervisory and control system in Austria to be effective. 
Ker so pomanjkljivosti, ki jih je Sodišče zaznalo v Avstriji, neznatne, Komisija ocenjuje, da je nadzorni in kontrolni sistem v Avstriji uspešen.
3.14 and 3.15. 
3.14 in 3.15
EN C 344/80 Official Journal T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S 3.16. IACScoversthemainschemesfinancedbyEAGF,i.e. SPS, SAPS and all area related coupled aid schemes as well as animal premium schemes. The system consists of databases of holdings and applications, systems for identifying agricultural parcels and registering animals, as well as a register of entitlements in those Member States implementing the SPS. 
SL C 344/80 Uradni list Evropske unije 12.11.2012 U G OT OV I T V E S O D I Š Č A 3.16 IAKSzajemaglavnesheme,kisefinancirajoizEKJS, torej SEP, SEPP in vse vezane pomoči na površino ter sheme premij za živali. Sistem obsega podatkovne zbirke o kmetijskih gospodarstvih in zahtevkih ter sisteme za identifikacijo enot rabe ali poljin in registracijo živali, v državah članicah, ki izvajajo SEP, pa tudi register pravic.
It provides for several eligibility checks including cross-checks between databases. 3.17. 
Določa več kontrol v zvezi z upravičenostjo, vključno z navzkrižnimi preverjanji med podatkovnimi zbirkami.
TheCourt’sIACSauditscoveredcompliancewiththe provisions of the relevant regulations and an assessment of the effectiveness of the systems in ensuring the regularity of trans­ actions, notably the following elements: (a) administrative and control procedures to ensure correct payment including quality of databases; (b) control systems based on physical on-the-spot checks; (c) procedures to ensure recovery of undue payments. 
3.17 Revizije Sodišča v zvezi z IAKS so zajele skladnost z določbami ustreznih uredb in oceno uspešnosti sistemov pri zagotavljanju pravilnosti transakcij.
Administrative and control procedures to ensure correct payment including quality of databases 3.18. The administrative checks(20) by paying agencies must include cross-checks wherever possible and appropriate, inter alia with all IACS databases. 
Administrativni in kontrolni postopki za zagotavljanje pravilnosti plačil, vključno s kakovostjo podatkovnih zbirk 3.18 Administrativni pregledi (20), ki jih opravljajo plačilne agencije, morajo vključevati navzkrižno preverjanje, kadar koli je to mogoče in primerno, med drugim z vsemi podatkovnimi zbirkami IAKS.
The Court verified whether databases were complete and reliable, whether checks identified anomalies and whether action was taken to correct errors detected. The major systems weaknesses found are set out below. 
Sodišče je preverilo, ali so podatkovne zbirke popolne in zanesljive, ali so bila pri pregledih ugotovljena odstopanja in ali so bili izvedeni ukrepi za odpravljanje ugoto­ vljenih napak.
3.19. EUlegislationprovidesthatafterexpiryofaspecified deadline, farmers can no longer declare additional parcels and that any anomaly detected by the paying agency will lead to a reduction of the aid amount. 
3.19 Zakonodaja EU določa, da kmetje po izteku določe­ nega roka ne morejo več prijaviti dodatnih parcel in da se vsako odstopanje, ki ga ugotovi plačilna agencija, kaznuje z znižanjem zneska pomoči.
However, the administration may correct a claim at any time without applying an aid reduction in the case of an obvious error defined as an inconsistency (21) which becomes apparent from the data contained in the claim itself. 
Vendar lahko administracija kadar koli popravi zahtevek, ne da bi znižala pomoč, če gre za očitno napako, opredeljeno kot nedoslednost (21), ki je očitna že iz podatkov v zahtevku.
The Court found that four paying agencies (Denmark, Finland, Italy (Lombardia) and Romania) incorrectly applied the obvious error concept, by allowing the replacement of ineligible or double claimed parcels, with the result that the paying agencies did not apply aid reductions (see example 3.3). of the European Union T H E 12.11.2012 _____________ (20) Articles 28 and 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. (21) Such as clerical error, inconsistency between graphical and alpha­ numerical information contained in the application, map reading errors, etc. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so štiri plačilne agencije (Danska, Finska, Italija (Lombardija) in Romu­ nija) nepravilno uporabljale pojem očitne napake, ko so dovo­ ljevale zamenjavo neupravičenih ali dvakrat prijavljenih parcel in posledično niso uporabile znižanj pomoči (glej primer 3.3). _____________ (20) Člena 28 in 29 Uredbe (ES) št. 1122/2009. (21) Kot so tipkarska napaka, nedoslednost med grafičnimi in alfanu­ meričnimi informacijami v aplikaciji, napake pri branju zemljevida itd. O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E 3.19 V povezavi z Romunijo je revizija služb Komisije razkrila, da regio­ nalni plačilni organi niso vedno pravilno uporabljali nacionalnih smernic za določanje očitnih napak.
C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S As regards Denmark, Finland and Italy, the national auth­ orities have taken or are taking corrective actions by amending their internal instructions and procedures and, where necessary, by recovering overpaid amounts. 
V povezavi z Dansko, Finsko in Italijo so nacionalni organi že sprejeli popravne ukrepe ali jih trenutno sprejemajo, in sicer z izboljšanjem notranjih navodil in postopkov ter po potrebi z izterjavo preplačanih zneskov.
EN 12.11.2012 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion C344/81 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S Example 3.3 — Incorrect treatment of the obvious error concept In the case of Romania the incorrect application of the obvious error concept was systematic. 
SL 12.11.2012 UradnilistEvropskeunije C344/81 U G O T OV I T V E S O D I Š Č A O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E Primer 3.3 – Nepravilna obravnava pojma očitne napake V Romuniji je bila nepravilna uporaba pojma očitne napake sistematična.
Parcels affected by over-declarations or double declarations are replaced in a significant number of cases by other parcels in different locations and of a different size or shape. 
Parcele s preveliko prijavljeno površino ali parcele, ki so prijavljene dvakrat, se v številnih primerih zamenjajo z drugimi parcelami, ki so na drugi lokaciji ter drugačne velikosti ali oblike.
Such replacements cannot be considered as a correction of obvious errors (22). 
Takih zamenjav ni mogoče šteti za popravek očitnih napak (22).
Example 3.3 — Incorrect treatment of the obvious error concept As from 2010 the Romanian authorities have implemented a web based LPIS (IPA online) which enhances parcel location. 
Primer 3.3 – Nepravilna obravnava pojma očitne napake Romunski organi so leta 2010 uvedli spletni sistem LPIS (IPA-Online), ki poenostavlja pregledovanje lokacije parcel.
As regards the reference to the Court’s findings concerning Romania in its 2008 Annual Report (paragraph 5.38), and as already stated in its respective reply, the Commission does not share the view of the Court of Auditors concerning the application of the obvious error concept in case of misplacement of parcels. 3.20. 
V povezavi s sklicevanjem na ugotovitve, ki jih je o Romuniji podalo Sodišče v svojem letnem poročilu za leto 2008 (odstavek 5.38), se Komisija, kot je že navedla v zadevnem odgovoru, ne strinja z mnenjem Računskega sodišča glede uporabe pojma očitne napake v primeru napačnega razporejanja parcel.
The LPIS is a database which contains a record of the entire agricultural area (reference parcels) of the Member State and the eligible areas which is of key importance for the quality of administrative cross-checks (see example 3.4). 3.20. 
3.20 Identifikacijski sistem za zemljišča (LPIS) je poda­ tkovna zbirka, ki vsebuje podatke o celotni kmetijski površini (referenčnih parcelah) v državi članici in o upravičenih površi­ nah. Zbirka je velikega pomena za kakovost administrativnih navzkrižnih preverjanj (glej primer 3.4).
Example 3.4 — Incorrect data in the LPIS In two Member States (23) (Italy (Lombardia) and Spain (Galicia)), the Court found cases where ‘permanent pasture’ reference parcels were recorded in the LPIS as being 100 % eligible despite the fact that they are fully or partially covered with dense forest or other ineligible features. 
3.20 Primer 3.4 – Napačni podatki v LPIS Sodišče je v dveh državah članicah (23) (Italija (Lombardija) in Španija (Galicija)) odkrilo primere, ko so bile referenčne parcele s „trajnim pašnikom“ evidentirane v LPIS kot stoodstotno upravičene, čeprav so v celoti ali delno pokrite z gostim gozdom ali imajo druge neupravičene značilnosti.
The Court also observed that the LPIS was not updated with the results of on-the-spot inspections performed by paying agencies (Hungary, Italy (Lombardia) and Spain (Galicia)). 
Sodišče je ugotovilo tudi, da v LPIS ni bilo posodobljenih rezultatov inšpekcijskih pregledov na kraju samem, ki so jih opravile plačilne agencije (Madžarska, Italija (Lombardija) in Španija (Galicija)).
Example 3.4 — Incorrect data in the LPIS According to the Italian authorities, the issue has been rectified as from 2011. 
Primer 3.4 – Napačni podatki v LPIS Po podatkih italijanskih organov je bila težava leta 2011 odpravljena.
The Commission is pursuing this through the conformity clearance procedure of accounts. 
Komisija napredek spremlja s postopkom potrjevanja skladnosti obračunov.
The Commission is aware of the issues related to the eligibility of pasture areas in Spain. 
Komisija se zaveda težav, povezanih z upravičenostjo pašnikov v Španiji.
The Spanish authorities were requested to act on this matter and presented the LPIS Improvement Plan in November 2010 including, notably, measures to implement the application of an eligibility coefficient to pasture parcels and to ensure systematic update of LPIS with the results of on-the-spot checks. 
Španski organi so morali v povezavi s tem ukrepati ter so novembra 2010 predstavili načrt za izboljšanje sistema LPIS, ki med drugim vključuje ukrepe za uvedbo uporabe koeficienta upravičenosti za pašniške površine in zagotavljanje sistematičnega posodabljanja sistema LPIS z rezultati pregledov na kraju samem.