natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The audit found that data pertaining to different years was not always comparable over time and that, as a consequence, trend changes could not be detected. 
Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da podatkov za različna leta ni bilo vedno mogoče primerjati med leti in da zato ni bilo mogoče odkriti sprememb trendov.
One reason is that legislation may change. 
Eden od razlogov za to je, da se lahko spremeni zakonodaja.
For instance, Dutch national legislation implementing the nitrates Directive was completely overhauled in 2006, so that the number of cases of non-compliance before and after the change is not comparable. 
Nizozemska zakonodaja za izvajanje direktive o nitratih je bila na primer v letu 2006 v celoti prenovljena, tako da števila primerov neskladnosti pred spremembo in po njej ni možno primerjati.
Another reason is that large changes in the size and the composition of the population occurred. 
Drug razlog pa so velike spremembe v velikosti in sestavi populacije.
In Greece, the population from which the annual cross compliance control sample was selected more than doubled between 2005 and 2006. 32 
V Grčiji se je populacija, iz katere je bil izbran vzorec za letno kontrolo navzkrižne skladnosti, med letoma 2005 in 2006 več kot podvojila. 32
The reporting format prescribed by the Commission is not precise enough. 
Oblika poročanja, ki jo je predpisala Komisija, ni dovolj natančna.
For certain elements it is unclear how they should be reported, e.g. warnings or cases of non-compliance where sanctions are not yet determined following appeals by farmers. 
Pri nekaterih elementih, kot so npr. opomini ali primeri neskladnosti, kjer sankcije še niso določene, ker so se kmetje pritožili, ni jasno, kako je treba o njih poročati.
Farmers who breach more requirements may be reported in the same way as farmers with only one breach. 
O kmetih, ki kršijo več zahtev, je mogoče poročati enako kot o kmetih s samo eno kršitvijo.
Also the nature of the non-compliance is not identified. 
Prav tako ni opredeljena narava neskladnosti.
A formal non-compliance such as a missing document is reported in the same manner as a substantial one such as the use of prohibited hormones. 
O formalni neskladnosti, kot je manjkajoč dokument, se poroča na enak način kot o pomembni neskladnosti, kot je uporaba prepovedanih hormonov.
These limitations make it difficult to compare data between Members States and to aggregate them in a meaningful manner. 
Zaradi teh omejitev je podatke držav članic težko primerjati med seboj in jih smiselno združiti.
The Commission Regulation requires that the selection of the farms controlled for cross compliance be based on a risk analysis. 
V skladu z Uredbo Komisije se kmetije, na katerih se opravi kontrola navzkrižne skladnosti, izberejo na podlagi analize tveganja.
It is difficult to assess to what extent cases of non-compliance found in a sample of farms selected on the basis of a risk analysis are representative of all farms in a Member State. 
Težko je oceniti, v kolikšni meri so primeri neskladnosti, odkriti v vzorcu kmetij, izbranih na podlagi analize tveganja, reprezentativni za vse kmetije v določeni državi članici.
Risk factors used change in time and vary between different Member States. 
Uporabljeni dejavniki tveganja se sčasoma spreminjajo in se v različnih državah članicah razlikujejo.
This is an additional complicating factor for detecting trend changes and aggregating data. 
To je še dodatni dejavnik, ki otežuje ugotavljanje sprememb trenda in združevanje podatkov.
The audit found that data reported by the Member States suffered from serious weaknesses. 
Revizija je pokazala, da so na podatke, ki so jih sporočile države članice, vplivale resne slabosti.
Box 5 identifies some examples of incomplete and inaccurate reporting which affected the quality of data reported to the Commission. 
V spodnjem okviru so navedeni nekateri primeri necelovitega in netočnega poročanja, ki je vplivalo na kakovost podatkov, sporočenih Komisiji.
33 BOX 5 EXAMPLES OF INCOMPLETE AND INACCURATE REPORTING14 The audit found that data reported by Finland to the Commission was incomplete and inconsistent. 
33 OKVIR 5 PRIMERI NECELOVITEGA IN NETOČNEGA POROČANJA14 Revizija je pokazala, da so bili podatki, ki jih je Finska sporočila Komisiji, neceloviti in neskladni.
For instance, the non-compliance rate reported to the Commission for GAEC was 14 %, while an audit of the underlying data showed that in reality this was almost double (27 %). 
Komisiji sporočena stopnja neskladnosti z dobrimi kmetijskimi in okoljskimi pogoji je na primer znašala 14 %, medtem ko je revizija z njimi povezanih podatkov pokazala, da je bila ta stopnja v resnici skoraj dvakrat večja (27 %).
The Finnish authorities were not able to explain this situation. 
Finski organi oblasti niso mogli pojasniti tega stanja.
France reported to the Commission that 4 277 farms were checked for each of the five standards for GAEC. 
Francija je Komisiji sporočila, da je bilo na 4 277 kmetijah pregledanih vseh pet standardov za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje.
This figure includes farms where the standard did not apply. 
V tej številki so upoštevane tudi kmetije, na katerih se določen standard ni uporabljal.
The real figure, i.e. the number of checks in case the standard applied, was much lower, e.g. 1 339 for the GAEC standard relating to irrigation. 
Resnično število, tj. število pregledov, kjer se je standard uporabljal, je bilo precej nižje, npr. 1 339 za standard za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje glede namakanja.
The control reports used in Greece do not have a space to indicate that obligations do not apply. 
V zapisnikih o kontroli, ki so se uporabljali v Grčiji, ni prostora, kjer bi se označilo, da obveznosti ne veljajo.
In such cases it is reported that the farmer complies. 
V takšnih primerih se označi, da kmet spoštuje obveznosti.
For example, Greece reported to the Commission that 4 784 farms were checked and complying with legislation for the sewage sludge Directive. 
Grčija je Komisiji na primer sporočila, da je bilo pregledanih 4 784 kmetij in da te spoštujejo zakonodajo o direktivi za blato iz čistilnih naprav.
This overestimates control and compliance rates as none of the farms actually used sewage sludge. 
To precenjuje stopnji kontrole in skladnosti, saj nobena od teh kmetij v resnici ni uporabljala blata iz čistilnih naprav.
The Netherlands reported that no non-compliance was found in the checking of 658 farms for the food and feed law. 
Nizozemska je sporočila, da pri pregledu 658 kmetij glede zakonodaje o krmi in živilih ni bila odkrita nobena neskladnost.
These figures do not take into account that a significant number of requirements, e.g. relating to milk hygiene, were not checked. 
V tem podatku ni upoštevano, da veliko število zahtev, npr. v zvezi s higieno mleka, ni bilo pregledanih.
14 The examples are based on the most recent available data at the time of the audit, which was 2006, except for Greece where the most recent data concerned 2005. 
14 Ti primeri temeljijo na najnovejših razpoložljivih podatkih v času revizije, ki so se nanašali na leto 2006, razen za Grčijo, kjer so se najnovejši podatki nanašali na leto 2005.
As the above examples show, control and compliance rates are in reality lower than those reported to the Commission. 
Kot kažejo zgornji primeri, sta stopnji kontrole in skladnosti v resnici nižji od Komisiji sporočenih stopenj.
Therefore, statistics reported to the Commission cannot be used to draw conclusions on compliance by farmers. 
Zato Komisiji sporočenih statističnih podatkov ni mogoče uporabiti za pripravo zaključkov o upoštevanju skladnosti s strani kmetov.
This difficulty is illustrated by a report of the European Parliament’s Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, which stated that, “Looking at the numbers presented by the Commission in its report, it is clear that most controlled farms do comply with set standards...”15. 
Ta težava je ponazorjena s poročilom Odbora Evropskega parlamenta za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja, v katerem piše: „Ob upoštevanju številčnih podatkov iz poročila Komisije je jasno, da večina pregledanih kmetij deluje v skladu z določenimi standardi ...“15.
The Court’s audit found that the Commission’s cross compliance data cannot be used to support this statement. 
Sodišče je z revizijo ugotovilo, da podatkov Komisije o navzkrižni skladnosti ni mogoče uporabiti v podporo tej izjavi.
THE COMMISSION’S PERFORMANCE MONITORING WAS FOUND WANTING 81. 
KOMISIJIN SISTEM ZA SPREMLJANJE USPEŠNOSTI JE BIL POMANJKLJIV 81.
A principle of sound financial management, set by Article 27(3) of the Financial Regulation, is that achievement of objectives is monitored by performance indicators. 
V skladu z načelom dobrega finančnega poslovodenja, ki ga določa člen 27(3) Finančne uredbe, se doseganje ciljev spremlja s kazalci poslovanja oziroma uspešnosti.
Thus, the Commission considered that the establishment of clear objectives and indicators16 was a first requirement of a good quality monitoring system. 
Tako je Komisija menila, da je bila določitev jasnih ciljev in kazalcev16 prvi pogoj za vzpostavitev dobrega kakovostnega sistema za spremljanje.
However, such sound indicators were not established. 
Vendar takšni dobri kazalci niso bili določeni.
This has hampered monitoring of cross compliance from the start. 
To je že od začetka oviralo spremljanje navzkrižne skladnosti.
15 European Parliament document 2007/0177(CNS); draft report on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003; 21.9.2007. 
15 Dokument Evropskega parlamenta 2007/0177(CNS); osnutek poročila o predlogu uredbe Sveta o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1782/2003; 21.9.2007.
16 ‘Ex ante evaluation: A practical guide for preparing proposals for expenditure programmes’, DG Budget, December 2001, p. 
16 Predhodno vrednotenje: A Practical Guide for Preparing Proposals for Expenditure Programmes DG BUDG (Praktična navodila za pripravo predlogov za programe odhodkov GD BUDG), december 2001, str.
Indicators are defined as information that helps to monitor progress and to report on objectives. 
Kazalniki so opredeljeni kot informacije, ki pomagajo spremljati napredek in poročati o ciljih.
34 BOX 5 In Slovenia, three out of four requirements for the birds and habitats Directives only apply to parcels inside Natura 2000 areas. 
34 OKVIR 5 V Sloveniji se tri od štirih zahtev za direktivi o pticah in habitatih uporabljajo samo za parcele znotraj območij Natura 2000.
Out of the 620 farms included in the cross compliance sample, only 34 (5 %) had parcels in Natura 2000 areas. 
Le 34 (5 %) od 620 kmetij, zajetih v vzorec za navzkrižno skladnost, jih je imelo parcele na območjih Natura 2000.
The control rate for the Natura 2000 requirements was twenty times below the one reported to the Commission. 
Stopnja kontrole za zahteve Natura 2000 je bila dvajsetkrat nižja od stopnje, ki je bila sporočena Komisiji.
When Poland reported the number of cases of non-compliance to the Commission, it did not include the 678 farms where cases of non-compliance had been detected but where the entire aid claim had been rejected. 
Poljska pri sporočanju števila primerov neskladnosti Komisiji ni zajela 678 kmetij, na katerih so bili ugotovljeni primeri neskladnosti, vendar je bila zavrnjena celotna vloga za pomoč.
Non-compliance rates based on the correct figures were significantly higher. 
Stopnje neskladnosti, ki so temeljile na pravilnih podatkih, so bile bistveno višje.
Portugal has defined for several SMRs a tolerance margin, below which sanctions are not applied. 
Portugalska je za več predpisanih zahtev ravnanja določila mejo tolerance, pod katero se sankcije ne dodeljujejo.
Non-compliance below the tolerance margin is not reported to the Commission. 
Neskladnosti pod mejo tolerance ne sporoča Komisiji.
Tolerance margins were also defined for requirements deriving from the TSE Regulation17. 
Meje tolerance so bile določene tudi za zahteve, ki izhajajo iz uredbe o TSE17.
If missing documents and certificates concern less than 10 % of the animals, or fewer than two animals for small farms, non-compliance is not reported. 
Če manjkajoči dokumenti in potrdila zadevajo manj kot 10 % živali ali manj kot dve živali v primeru majhnih kmetij, se neskladnost ne sporoči.
17 Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 
17 Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 999/2001 z dne 22. maja 2001 o določitvi predpisov za preprečevanje, nadzor in izkoreninjenje nekaterih transmisivnih spongiformnih encefalopatij (UL L 147, 31.5.2001, str.
Concerning indicators, the annual information reported by the Member States allows the Commission to check certain elements of the control and sanction systems. 
Kar zadeva kazalce, letne informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice, Komisiji omogočajo, da preveri določene sestavne dele sistemov kontrole in sankcij.
However, the Commission did not define performance indicators to monitor the achievement of the objectives set out in the Council Regulation (see paragraph 12). 
Vendar Komisija ni določila kazalnikov uspešnosti, s katerimi bi spremljala doseganje ciljev, določenih v Uredbi Sveta (glej odstavek 12).
There are, for instance, no performance indicators for compliance with rules relating to agricultural land, the abandonment of agricultural land, or the extent to which land is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition. 
Ni na primer kazalnikov uspešnosti za skladnost s pravili v zvezi s kmetijskimi zemljišči, opuščanjem kmetijskih zemljišč ali s tem, v kolikšni meri se zemljišča obdelujejo v skladu z dobrimi kmetijskimi in okoljskimi pogoji.
Baseline information, in the form of systematic data describing the situation before cross compliance became operational (e.g. 2003 and 2004), is not available. 
Izhodiščne informacije v obliki sistematičnih podatkov, ki opisujejo stanje pred začetkom delovanja navzkrižne skladnosti (npr. v letih 2003 in 2004), niso na voljo.
The Commission and the Member States did not use the time available since the adoption of the Council Regulation establishing cross compliance, in September 2003, to gather baseline data for monitoring and evaluating, for instance on the number of checks and the number of infringements. 
Komisija in države članice niso izkoristile časa, ki je bil na voljo od sprejetja Uredbe Sveta o uvedbi navzkrižne skladnosti septembra 2003, da bi zbrale izhodiščne podatke, na primer o številu pregledov in kršitev, ki bi jih uporabile za spremljanje in vrednotenje.
Due to the problems with data and reporting (see paragraphs 77 and 78) there is still no reliable baseline. 
Zaradi težav s podatki in poročanjem (glej odstavka 77 in 78) še vedno ni zanesljivega izhodišča.
The Commission defines monitoring as a continuous process of examining the delivery of programme outputs, and finds that the use of indicators always needs to be complemented with an analysis of qualitative factors and with an interpretation of the data produced18. 
Komisija opredeljuje spremljanje kot neprekinjen proces, s katerim se preverja zagotavljanje izložkov programa, ter ugotavlja, da je treba uporabo kazalnikov vselej dopolniti z analizo kvalitativnih dejavnikov in razlago pripravljenih podatkov18.
The audit found that such a continuous process or analysis and interpretation of data did not exist for cross compliance. 
Revizija je pokazala, da takšnega neprekinjenega procesa ali analize in razlage podatkov pri navzkrižni skladnosti ni bilo.
Due to the lack of clear objectives and monitoring data, evaluations are difficult to carry out. 
Vrednotenja je težko izvajati, ker ni jasnih ciljev in podatkov o spremljanju.
Consequently, accountability for results and impacts is problematic19. 
Zato je odgovornost za rezultate in učinke nejasna19.
18 ‘Ex ante evaluation: A practical guide for preparing proposals for expenditure programmes’, DG Budget, December 2001, p. 
18 Predhodno vrednotenje: „A practical guide for preparing proposals for expenditure programmes“, Budget DG (Praktična navodila za pripravo predlogov za programe odhodkov, GD BUDG), december 2001, str.
19 The Communication on evaluation of July 2000 (point 2.3.1) states “...reliable ex post evaluation, and hence accountability for results and impacts, is largely dependent on the quality of the preparation of the intervention at its outset.” 
19 V sporočilu o vrednotenju iz julija 2000 (točka 2.3.1) piše, da sta zanesljivo naknadno vrednotenje in posledično odgovornost za rezultate in učinke odvisna predvsem od kakovosti priprave posega v njegovem začetku.
DG Budget’s ‘Evaluating EU activities: A practical guide for the Commission services’ (July 2004) states on p.71: “The fixing of objectives when an intervention is being designed is an essential aid to evaluation since they are an integral part of assessing an intervention directly with regard to the issues of relevance and effectiveness.” 35 
V praktičnih navodilih, ki jih je GD BUDG izdal za službe Komisije o vrednotenju dejavnosti EU (julij 2004), na strani 71 piše, da določitev ciljev ob snovanju posega bistveno prispeva k vrednotenju, saj so cilji sestavni del neposrednega ocenjevanja posega v zvezi z vprašanji ustreznosti in uspešnosti. 35
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 85. 
ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA 85.
The Court considers that cross compliance is a vital element of the CAP. 
Sodišče meni, da je navzkrižna skladnost bistveni sestavni del SKP.
Where properly applied it has the potential to make EU farmers who receive CAP payments comply with rules relating to agricultural land, agricultural production and activity. 
Ob pravilnem izvajanju lahko doseže, da kmetje v EU, ki prejemajo plačila SKP, upoštevajo pravila v zvezi s kmetijskim zemljiščem, kmetijsko proizvodnjo in dejavnostjo.
To be effective it requires the relevant rules to be translated into controllable requirements at farm level. 
Za njeno uspešnost je treba ustrezna pravila preoblikovati v preverljive zahteve na ravni kmetij.
The Court’s audit found that this was not yet the case. This was because the objectives and the scope of cross compliance are not well defined, making it unclear what cross compliance is designed to achieve. 
Sodišče je z revizijo ugotovilo, da to še ni bilo izvedeno, ker cilji in obseg navzkrižne skladnosti niso dobro opredeljeni, zaradi česar ni jasno, kaj naj bi navzkrižna skladnost dosegla.
In particular, the global objectives set out by Council have not yet all been translated into adequate operational requirements and standards to be applied at farm level. 
Izpostaviti velja, da vsi splošni cilji, ki jih je pripravil Svet, še niso bili preoblikovani v ustrezne operativne zahteve in standarde, ki se uporabljajo na ravni kmetij.
The Court recommends that: • the Commission develop and detail the objectives set out in the Council Regulation in order to formulate them in a “SMART” manner and organise them in a logical hierarchy; • the Member States define a complete set of verifiable requirements and standards, to be applied at farm level. 
Sodišče priporoča: • da Komisija razvije in podrobno oblikuje cilje, določene v Uredbi Sveta, da jih lahko opredeli v obliki „SMART“ in logično prednostno razvrsti; • da države članice podrobno določijo niz preverljivih zahtev in standardov, ki se uporabljajo na ravni kmetij.
The framework of cross compliance poses considerable difficulties, notably because of its complexity. 
Okvir navzkrižne skladnosti povzroča precejšnje težave zlasti zaradi svoje zapletenosti.
In order for cross compliance to achieve its potential positive effects, the Court recommends that: • the Commission simplify the framework, in particular by organising it around the principal elements of farming activity where improvements are sought, by specifying the results that are expected, and by prioritising requirements and standards; • the specific results to be achieved be based on needs assessments and specific studies; • the Member States be required to lay down the precise obligations deriving from the legislation, taking account of the specific characteristics of the areas and farming practices concerned where appropriate; • the Commission assess the quality of the requirements and standards defined by the Member States. 
Da bi lahko navzkrižna skladnost dosegla svoje možne pozitivne učinke, Sodišče priporoča, da: • Komisija poenostavi okvir, zlasti tako, da ga organizira okoli glavnih sestavnih delov kmetijske dejavnosti, kjer so potrebne izboljšave, da jasno določi pričakovane rezultate ter da prednostno razvrsti zahteve in standarde; • se specifični rezultati, ki jih je treba doseči, pripravijo na podlagi ocen potreb in specifičnih študij; • se od držav članic zahteva, da natančno določijo obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz zakonodaje, in pri tem, kjer je ustrezno, upoštevajo posebne značilnosti zadevnih območij in kmetijskih praks; • Komisija oceni kakovost zahtev in standardov, ki jih določijo države članice.
Cross compliance and rural development policies are not well adapted to one another. 
Politiki navzkrižne skladnosti in razvoja podeželja nista dobro usklajeni.
The Court recommends that: • the Commission harmonise cross compliance and rural development policies, in particular by reinstating the rural development provisions which have been weakened following the introduction of cross compliance; • the Community legislator consider whether such elements of the rural development policy as the approval of standards by the Commission and the obligation of Member States to lay down verifiable standards should also apply to cross compliance; • the Commission draw a clear delineation between cross compliance and agri-environment with a view to ensuring that rural development benefits only compensate obligations going beyond cross compliance requirements and standards. 
Sodišče priporoča, da: • Komisija uskladi politiki navzkrižne skladnosti in razvoja podeželja, zlasti s ponovno uvedbo določb o razvoju podeželja, ki so bile oslabljene zaradi uvedbe navzkrižne skladnosti; • zakonodajalec Skupnosti razmisli, ali bi se morali takšni sestavni deli politike razvoja podeželja, kot sta Komisijina odobritev standardov in obveznost držav članic, da določijo preverljive standarde, uporabljati tudi pri navzkrižni skladnosti; • Komisija jasno razmeji navzkrižno skladnost in kmetijsko okoljske ukrepe, da zagotovi, da se s podporo za razvoj podeželja zagotovi nadomestilo le za obveznosti, ki presegajo zahteve in standarde navzkrižne skladnosti.
Member States did not take their responsibility to implement effective control and sanction systems. 
Države članice niso prevzele svoje odgovornosti za izvajanje uspešnih sistemov kontrole in sankcij.
The Court recommends that: • Member States implement effective control and sanction systems which provide sufficient assurance on farmers’ compliance; • the Commission amend the control system with a view to controlling at least 1 % of the farms applying each obligations; • the Community legislator consider revising the principles underlying the sanction system to make reductions in payments proportional to or dependent on the seriousness of the breach of cross compliance obligations by the farmer sanctioned. 
Sodišče priporoča, da: • države članice izvajajo uspešna sistema kontrole in sankcij, ki zagotavljata zadostno zagotovilo o upoštevanju skladnosti s strani kmetov; • Komisija spremeni sistem kontrole, da bi lahko kontrolirala vsaj 1 % kmetij, ki izvajajo vse obveznosti; • zakonodajalec Skupnosti razmisli o spremembi načel, na katerih temelji sistem sankcij, da bi se plačila znižala sorazmerno z resnostjo kmetove kršitve obveznosti navzkrižne skladnosti ali odvisno od nje.
Monitoring and reporting were found wanting as some of the basic elements of a monitoring system are missing and data reported by the Member States to the Commission is unreliable. 
Spremljanje in poročanje nista bila zadostna, saj ni nekaterih osnovnih sestavnih delov sistema za spremljanje, podatki, ki jih države članice sporočijo Komisiji, pa niso zanesljivi.