natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
When the implementation of the action plan is not deemed to be effective, payments can be reduced or suspended in order to protect the EU budget. 
Kadar se izvajanje akcijskega načrta ne zdi uspešno, je mogoče plačila znižati ali začasno ustaviti, da se zaščiti proračun EU.
EN 13.10.2016 Official Journal THE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS — Recommendation 2: annually monitor the results of the LPIS quality assessments performed by Member States, and check that all Member States with negative assessments actually take the necessary remedial action (see Figure 7.9); for rural development: — Recommendation 3: ensure that all Member States’ action plans addressing errors in rural development include effective actions on public procurement (see paragraph 7.45); of the European Union C 375/235 THE COMMISSION’S REPLIES The Commission accepts this recommendation. 
13.10.2016 Uradni list Evropske unije C 375/235 ODGOVORI KOMISIJE SL UGOTOVITVE SODIŠČA — priporočilo 2: naj vsako leto spremlja rezultate ocen kakovosti LPIS, ki jih izvajajo države članice, ter preveri, ali vse države članice z negativno oceno dejansko sprejmejo potrebne popravljalne ukrepe (glej sliko 7.9), za razvoj podeželja: — priporočilo 3: naj zagotovi, da bodo vsi akcijski načrti držav članic za obravnavo napak na področju razvoja podeželja vključevali uspešne ukrepe na področju javnega naročanja (glej odstavek 7.45), Komisija sprejema to priporočilo.
The results of the LPIS quality assessment (QA) are monitored on an annual basis. 
Rezultati ocene kakovosti identifikacijskega sistema za zemljišča (LPIS) se spremljajo na letni ravni.
This yearly exercise is a quality control process whose ultimate objective is to improve the quality and reliability of the LPIS, by analysing detected technical weaknesses and to taking remedial actions to address them. 
Te letne dejavnosti so postopek nadzora kakovosti, katerega končni cilj je izboljšati kakovost in zanesljivost sistema LPIS, tako da se analizirajo ugotovljene tehnične slabosti in sprejmejo popravljalni ukrepi za njihovo odpravo.
The Commission accepts this recommendation. 
Komisija sprejema to priporočilo.
The Commission is fully engaged in providing targeted and effective guidance on how to prevent irregularities in public procurement procedures: ‘Public Procurement — a study on administrative capacity of the EU’ (2016), including country-specific recommendations, and ‘Guidance for practitioners on the avoidance of the most common errors in public procurement of projects funded by the European Structural and Investment Funds’ (2015). 
Komisija dejavno sodeluje pri zagotavljanju usmerjenih in učinkovitih smernic za preprečevanje nepravilnosti v postopkih javnega naročanja. Leta 2016 je zagotovila študijo o javnem naročanju in upravnih zmogljivostih v EU, vključno s priporočili za posamezne države (Public Procurement – a study on administrative capacity of the EU), leta 2015 pa smernice z naslovom „Javna naročila – Smernice za strokovne delavce za preprečevanje najpogostejših napak pri projektih, ki se financirajo iz evropskih strukturnih in investicijskih skladov“.
In December 2015 the Commission has underlined that all Member States need to pay particular attention to public procurement rules, and take corrective action where relevant. 
Decembra 2015 je Komisija poudarila, da morajo vse države članice nameniti posebno pozornost pravilom javnega naročanja in izvesti popravljalne ukrepe, kadar je to potrebno.
The Commission is working intensively with the Member States in order to identify and remedy the causes of errors in the implementation of the policy. 
Komisija intenzivno sodeluje z državami članicami, da bi se odkrili in odpravili vzroki napak pri izvajanju politike.
This work will continue with the aim to further address identified shortcomings, including requesting action plans. 
To delo bo nadaljevala za nadaljnjo obravnavo ugotovljenih pomanjkljivosti, vključno s tem, da bo zahtevala akcijske načrte.
The Commission insists on the completeness and effectiveness of these action plans. 
Komisija vztraja pri popolnosti in učinkovitosti teh akcijskih načrtov.
Member States are requested to take corrective actions when weaknesses are identified in the context of conformity audits, audit by the ECA or findings of the certification body or paying agency. 
Ko se v okviru revizij skladnosti, revizij Evropskega računskega sodišča ali ugotovitev certifikacijskih organov ali plačilnih agencij ugotovijo slabosti, morajo države članice sprejeti popravljalne ukrepe.
Finally, net financial corrections are applied where necessary. 
Nazadnje se po potrebi izvedejo neto finančni popravki.
The Commission will continue to support the Member States to improve and consolidate the work done by the certification bodies, to ensure that, in the coming years, increased assurance can be drawn from their work. 
Komisija bo še naprej podpirala države članice pri izboljševanju in utrjevanju dela certifikacijskih organov, da bi se v prihodnjih letih iz njihovega dela lahko pridobilo večje zagotovilo.
The Commission will when updating its audit manual address this issue building on the experience gained. for EAGF and rural development: — Recommendation 4: monitor and actively support certification bodies in improving their work and methodology on the legality and regularity of expenditure so that they provide reliable information for the Commission’s estimation of the adjusted error rate (see paragraph 7.54); — Recommendation 5: update DG AGRI’s audit manual by including detailed audit procedures and documentation requirements for the verification of the data supplied by Member States and used for calculating financial corrections (see paragraph 7.36); 
Komisija bo ob posodobitvi svojega revizijskega priročnika to vprašanje obravnavala na podlagi pridobljenih izkušenj. za EKJS in razvoj podeželja: — priporočilo 4: naj spremlja in dejavno podpira certifikacijske organe pri izboljševanju njihovega dela in metodologije v zvezi z zakonitostjo in pravilnostjo odhodkov, tako da bodo zagotavljali zanesljive informacije za oceno prilagojene stopnje napake, ki jo pripravi Komisija (glej odstavek 7.54), — priporočilo 5: naj posodobi revizijski priročnik GD AGRI z vključitvijo podrobnih revizijskih postopkov in zahtev v zvezi z dokumentacijo za preverjanje podatkov, ki jih predložijo države članice in ki se uporabljajo za izračun finančnih popravkov (glej odstavek 7.36),
EN C 375/236 Official Journal of the European Union 13.10.2016 THE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS THE COMMISSION’S REPLIES for fisheries: — Recommendation 6: improve the compliance of DG The Commission accepts this recommendation. MARE’s conformity audits with international auditing standards (see paragraph 7.50). 
C 375/236 za ribištvo: UGOTOVITVE SODIŠČA Uradni list Evropske unije 13.10.2016 ODGOVORI KOMISIJE SL — priporočilo 6: naj revizije skladnosti, ki jih izvaja GD MARE, bolj uskladi z mednarodnimi revizijskimi standardi (glej odstavek 7.50).
This year, we continued this work. 
To delo je letos nadaljevalo.
Of the 159 rural development transactions tested for regularity, we assessed performance related issues for 59 investment projects in tangible assets. 7.69. 
Od 159 transakcij s področja razvoja podeželja, katerih pravilnost je Sodišče preizkusilo, je za 59 naložbenih projektov z naložbami v opredmetena sredstva ocenilo zadeve, povezane s smotrnostjo poslovanja.
Of the 59 investment projects 34 were completed at the time of our audit visit. 
7.69 34 od teh 59 naložbenih projektov je bilo v času našega revizijskega obiska zaključenih.
For these completed investment projects we checked whether the investment had been carried out as planned. 
Pri teh zaključenih naložbenih projektih je Sodišče preverilo, ali je bila naložba izvedena po načrtu.
This criterion was fulfilled for most projects (95 %). 
To merilo je bilo pri večini projektov (95 %) izpolnjeno.
For the 59 investment projects we found the following main performance issues: — insufficient evidence that costs are reasonable; — deficiencies in targeting measures and selecting projects, including weak links to Europe 2020 objectives. 
7.70 Sodišče je za 59 naložbenih projektov ugotovilo naslednji glavni zadevi v zvezi s smotrnostjo poslovanja: Komisija sprejema to priporočilo.
It should be noted that the procedural improvements that took place after the period covered by the Court’s audit have already addressed many of the issues highlighted here (in particular as regards audit evidence and audit trail). 
Opozoriti je treba, da so postopkovne izboljšave, ki so bile izvedene po obdobju, ki ga zajema revizija Sodišča, že obravnavale veliko poudarjenih vprašanj (še posebej glede revizijskih dokazov in revizijske sledi).
(44) 2014 annual report, part 2 of chapter 7. 
(44) Del 2 poglavja 7 letnega poročila za leto 2014.
Last year the respective figures were 69 % and 31 %. 
Lani je bilo razmerje 69 % in 31 %.
For both years, the projects examined were implemented in the 2007–2013 programming period and under the same rules. 
Za obe leti so se preučeni projekti izvajali v programskem obdobju 2007–2013 in v skladu z istimi pravili.
Figure 7.13 gives two examples of investment projects for the same rural development measure, one where we found that costs were reasonable, and one where this was not the case. 
Na sliki 7.13 sta primera naložbenih projektov za isti ukrep za razvoj podeželja. Za enega je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so stroški razumni, za drugega pa ne.
In 2014 we published a special report containing a detailed examination of this topic (45). of the European Union C 375/237 THE COMMISSION’S REPLIES 7.71. 
Sodišče je leta 2014 objavilo posebno poročilo, v katerem je ta tema podrobno preučena (45).
The assessment of reasonableness of costs is the responsibility of the Member States (see article 48 of Regulation (EU) No 809/ 2014). 
7.71 Ocenjevanje razumnosti stroškov je odgovornost držav članic (glej člen 48 Uredbe (EU) št.
The Commission protects the EU budget when weaknesses are identified through conformity procedures and issues guidance on how to improve the systems in place (see Guidance on rural development controls and sanctions, including a checklist for the assessment of reasonableness of costs). 
Ko se s postopki skladnosti ugotovijo slabosti, Komisija poskrbi za zaščito proračuna EU in izda smernice, kako izboljšati že vzpostavljene sisteme (glej smernice o nadzoru in sankcijah na področju razvoja podeželja, vključno s kontrolnim seznamom za ocenjevanje razumnosti stroškov).
Furthermore, training and sharing of good practices are organised by the European Network of Rural Development. 
Poleg tega Evropska mreža za razvoj podeželja organizira izobraževanja in izmenjavo dobrih praks.
Finally, the Commission is actively promoting the use of simplified cost options in the Member States. 
Komisija prav tako dejavno spodbuja uporabo poenostavljenih možnosti obračunavanja stroškov v državah članicah.
Figure 7.13 — Examples of checking reasonableness of costs for the modernisation of agricultural holdings In Greece, a beneficiary bought a tractor partially financed by rural development funds. 
Slika 7.13 – Primera preverjanja razumnosti stroškov za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev V Grčiji je upravičenec kupil traktor, kar se je delno financiralo iz sredstev za razvoj podeželja.
The beneficiary had to use a predetermined formula to calculate the appropriate horsepower of the tractor, taking into consideration the cultivated area of the land. 
Upravičenec je moral s predhodno določeno formulo izračunati ustrezno moč traktorja ob upoštevanju obdelovalnih površin zemljišča.
The beneficiary provided an offer which the paying agency verified against a reference price which was taken from a specialist magazine about farm machinery. 
Upravičenec je predložil ponudbo, ki jo je plačilna agencija primerjala z referenčno ceno iz strokovne revije o kmetijskih strojih.
The paying agency concluded that the price for the specific model should be 10 % lower than the price proposed. 
Plačilna agencija je prišla do zaključka, da bi morala biti cena za ta model 10% nižja od predlagane.
As a result, the beneficiary bought a cheaper tractor. 
Zato je upravičenec kupil cenejši traktor.
In Slovakia, we audited a project for the construction of a storage facility. 
Na Slovaškem je Sodišče revidiralo projekt za gradnjo objekta za skladiščenje.
The paying agency did not check if the project costs were reasonable. 
Plačilna agencija ni preverila, ali so stroški projekta razumni.
However, we obtained conclusive evidence that the price of one of the main construction materials (concrete) was six times higher than the normal market price. 
Sodišče pa je pridobilo trdne dokaze o tem, da je bila cena enega glavnih gradbenih materialov (betona) šestkrat višja od običajne tržne cene.
Overall, the cost of the project should have been more than 50 % lower. 
Skupni stroški projekta bi morali biti več kot 50 % nižji.
Figure 7.13 — Examples of checking reasonableness of costs for the modernisation of agricultural holdings For the Slovakian case the Commission notes that the project was implemented. 7.72. 
Slika 7.13 – Primeri preverjanja razumnosti stroškov za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev V primeru Slovaške Komisija ugotavlja, da je bil projekt izveden.
Out of the 59 investment projects, 50 (85 %) were in line with the needs for both quantity and quality. 
7.72 Od 59 naložbenih projektov, jih je bilo 50 (85%) v skladu s potrebami po količini in kakovosti.
For example, we visited three projects that relate to the construction or the extension of commune centres in small towns or villages under the measures ‘village renewal and development’ and ‘implementing local development strategies’. 
Sodišče je na primer obiskalo tri projekte, ki se nanašajo na gradnjo ali razširitev občinskih centrov v majhnih mestih ali vaseh v okviru ukrepov obnova in razvoj vasi ter izvajanje lokalnih razvojnih strategij.
The investments were fully utilized at the time: all the rooms were in use and activities for the local community were scheduled for weeks ahead. 
V času obiska so bili vsi objekti, zgrajeni v okviru naložbe, v uporabi: vsi prostori so se uporabljali in dejavnosti za lokalno skupnost so bile načrtovane za več tednov.
(45) See special report No 22/2014 ‘Achieving economy: keeping the costs of EU-financed rural development project grants under control’ (http://eca.europa.eu). 
(45) Glej Posebno sporočilo št. 22/2014 – Doseganje gospodarnosti: obvladovanje stroškov projektov za razvoj podeželja, ki jih z nepovratnimi sredstvi financira EU (http://eca.europa.eu).
EN C 375/238 Official Journal THE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS 7.73. However, for nine projects (15 %) the output of the project was larger than actually needed. One example of such a case is the construction of a warehouse which was several times bigger than needed and therefore remained for a large part unused. 
C 375/238 Uradni list Evropske unije 13.10.2016 SL UGOTOVITVE SODIŠČA ODGOVORI KOMISIJE 7.73 Toda pri devetih projektih (15 %) je bil izložek večji, kot je bilo dejansko potrebno. Primer za to je gradnja skladišča, katerega velikost je potrebe presegla za nekajkrat, zato je bilo večinoma neizkoriščeno.
Another example of a project which included non-essential items is given in Figure 7.14. of the European Union THE COMMISSION’S REPLIES 13.10.2016 Figure 7.14 — Example of a project which included non-essential items In Italy (Campania), a municipality renewed a 1-kilometre footpath in a mountainous area for a cost of 441 000 euro. 
Drug primer projekta, ki je vključeval nebistvene postavke, je na sliki 7.14. Slika 7.14 – Primer projekta, ki je vključeval nebistvene postavke V Italiji (Kampanija) je občina za 441000 EUR prenovila 1 km dolgo pešpot na goratem območju.
During the procurement procedure, the municipality asked interested companies for proposals to make the investment more functional and environmentally friendly. 
Med postopkom oddaje javnega naročila je občina zainteresirana podjetja povabila k oddaji predlogov za to, kako narediti naložbo uporabnejšo in okolju prijaznejšo.
The proposal by the company selected included additional items costing 80 000 euro, over and above the cost of the work on the footpath. 
Predlog izbranega podjetja je poleg stroškov dela za pešpot vključeval dodatne postavke v vrednosti 80 000 EUR.
These additional items included a mountain bike worth 4 000 euro, a panoramic spyglass costing 3 500 euro, and a 10 000 euro donation to a local church. 
Te dodatne postavke so vključevale gorsko kolo v vrednosti 4 000 EUR, panoramski daljnogled v vrednosti 3 500 EUR, in donacijo lokalni cerkvi v višini 10 000 EUR.
Instead of restricting the contract to the needs of renovating the footpath, additional items were added which led to higher costs. 
Namesto da bi občina pogodbo omejila na potrebe, povezane s prenovo pešpoti, so bile te postavke dodane, kar je povzročilo višje stroške.
Figure 7.14 — Example of a project which included non-essential items The project in question, supported under the forestry measure 227 ‘Non-productive investments’, is under investigation by the Region. 
Slika 7.14 – Primer projekta, ki je vključeval nebistvene postavke Obravnavan projekt, ki je bil podprt v okviru gozdarskega ukrepa 227 „neproduktivne naložbe“, obravnava regija.
The Regional Managing Authority has not paid the final balance of the project yet and intends to make a reduction as a result of the control carried out. 
Regionalni organi upravljanja končnega zneska za projekt še niso plačali in ga nameravajo na podlagi izvedenega nadzora znižati.
We tested whether support was targeted at clearly defined objectives reflecting structural and territorial needs and structural disadvantages. 
Pomanjkljivosti pri usmerjanju ukrepov in izbiri projektov 7.74 Preizkusili smo, ali je bila podpora usmerjena v jasno opredeljene cilje, ki odražajo strukturne potrebe in potrebe območij ter strukturne slabosti.
This criterion was not fulfilled for 22 % of the investment projects examined. 
To merilo pri 22 % preučenih naložbenih projektov ni bilo izpolnjeno.
Last year we reported a very similar percentage (21%). 
Lani smo poročali o zelo podobnem odstotku (21 %).
Examples of good and bad practice are given in Figure 7.15. 
Primeri dobre in slabe prakse so prikazani na sliki 7.15.
We have reported on the lack of adequate targeting for rural development investments in our special reports (46). 7.74. 
O neustreznem usmerjanju naložb za razvoj podeželja je Sodišče poročalo v svojih posebnih poročilih (46).
For the 2014-2020 period, selection criteria have to be established for all measures but the area-and animal-related ones. 
7.74 Za obdobje 2014–2020 je treba določiti izbirna merila za vse ukrepe razen za tiste, povezane s površino in rejo živali.
The principles of selection criteria, in line with strategy and objectives of the policy, must be set in the programme. 
Načela izbirnih meril morajo biti določena v programu v skladu s strategijo in cilji politike.
Applications will then have to be assessed and ranked against specific selection criteria on which the Monitoring Committee should be consulted. 
Vloge bo treba oceniti in razvrstiti glede na specifična izbirna merila, glede katerih se je treba posvetovati z nadzornim odborom.
Minimum thresholds should be established for the application of selection criteria to avoid financing poor projects. 
Treba je določiti minimalni prag za uporabo izbirnih meril, da se prepreči financiranje slabih projektov.
EN 13.10.2016 Official Journal of the European Union C 375/239 THE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS THE COMMISSION’S REPLIES Figure 7.15 — Examples of targeting and selection In Italy (Campania), the paying agency opened a call for proposals with a budget of 25 million euro under the measure ‘modernisation of agricultural holdings’. 
SL 13.10.2016 Uradni list Evropske unije C 375/239 UGOTOVITVE SODIŠČA ODGOVORI KOMISIJE Slika 7.15 – Primeri usmerjanja in izbire V Italiji (Kampanija) je plačilna agencija objavila razpis za zbiranje predlogov s proračunom v višini 25 milijonov EUR v okviru ukrepa posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev.
The paying agency applied different selection criteria as regards the beneficiary (e.g. criteria on young farmers, gender balance), the holding (e.g. criteria on holdings situated in less favoured areas or producing quality products) and the project (e.g. criteria on synergies with other measures, innovation etc.). 
Plačilna agencija je uporabila različna izbirna merila za upravičence (npr. mladi kmetje, uravnotežena zastopanost spolov), kmetijska gospodarstva (npr. gospodarstva na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi ali za proizvodnjo kakovostnih proizvodov) in projekte (npr. medsebojno dopolnjevanje z drugimi ukrepi, inovacije itd.).
The Italian authorities also set a minimum threshold in advance in order for a project to be selected. 
Poleg tega so italijanski organi vnaprej določili najnižji prag, ki ga mora doseči izbran projekt.
In this case, the Italian authorities prioritised the principles of sound financial management above spending. 
V tem primeru so italijanski organi dajali prednost načelu dobrega finančnega poslovodenja pred porabo.
In Hungary, the objectives of the measure ‘modernisation of agricultural holdings’ include three broad areas (upgrading, diversification and compliance with standards). 
Na Madžarskem cilji ukrepa posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev vključujejo tri široka področja (nadgrajevanje, diverzifikacijo in skladnost s standardi).
The audited sub-measure was targeted towards animal holdings with a certain minimum size. 
Revidirani podukrep je bil namenjen živinorejskim gospodarstvom z omejeno najmanjšo dovoljeno velikostjo.
There was no other prioritization or geographical targeting of the aid. 
Za pomoč v okviru tega ukrepa ni bilo drugega prednostnega razvrščanja ali geografskega usmerjanja.
The rural development programme split the available budget into amounts that become available periodically to applicants. 
Razpoložljiva sredstva za program razvoja podeželja so bila razdeljena na zneske, ki so se prosilcem periodično dajali na voljo.
Although the Hungarian authorities defined selection criteria, they did not use them. 
Čeprav so madžarski organi opredelili izbirna merila, jih niso uporabljali.
The call for proposals for the audited project opened on 16 December 2013, for a budget of 10 million euro. 
Razpis za zbiranje predlogov za revidirani projekt je bil objavljen 16. decembra 2013, razpoložljiva sredstva pa so znašala 10 milijonov EUR.
The Hungarian authorities funded projects on a first come, first served basis. 
Madžarski organi so projekte financirali po načelu „kdor prej pride, prej melje“.
The last project accepted was submitted on 19 December 2013, only three days after the opening of the call. 
Zadnji projekt, ki je bil sprejet, je bil predložen 19. decembra 2013, le tri dni po objavi razpisa.
In this case, the selection process took no account of the projects’ potential impact. 
V tem primeru se pri izbirnem postopku ni upošteval potencialni učinek projektov.
The approach observed in Hungary allows the paying agency to fund projects with lower value-added, for the simple reason that they are submitted earlier than other projects with higher added value. 
Pri pristopu, kakršen je bil ugotovljen na Madžarskem, plačilne agencije lahko financirajo projekte z nižjo dodano vrednostjo preprosto zato, ker so predloženi pred drugimi projekti z višjo dodano vrednostjo.
Figure 7.15 — Examples of targeting and selection The added-value of projects is taken into account as part of the eligibility checks. 
Slika 7.15 – Primeri usmerjanja in izbire Dodana vrednost projekta se upošteva pri preverjanju upravičenosti.
At the very end of the programming period 2007-2013, in December 2013, Hungarian authorities did not use the same selection system as during the previous years. 
Ob samem zaključku programskega obdobja 2007–2013 v decembru 2013 madžarski organi niso uporabili istega izbirnega sistema kot v prejšnjih letih.
The objective was to support investments that can be still finished before the end of 2015. 
Cilj je bil podpreti naložbe, ki bi se lahko zaključile še pred koncem leta 2015.