natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Germany, Spain and France notified most cases in 2002 but Italy reported the highest value in that year, 80 million euro, followed by Spain with 59 million euro (see Illustration 5). 
Nemčija, Španija in Francija so prijavile največ primerov v letu 2002, najvišjo vrednost pa je v istem letu prijavila Italija, 80 milijonov EUR, sledila ji je Španija z 59 milijoni EUR (glej Prikaz 5).
Illustration 4 Average delays from discovery to report of irregularity Situation as at 31 December 2002. 
Prikaz 4 Povprečen čas od odkritja do prijave nepravilnosti Od leta 1971 Od leta 1994 EU 15 od 1994 EU 15 od 1971 Države članice Stanje na dan 31. decembra 2002.
Illustration 5 Irregularities communicated by the Member States in 2002 Source: Annex 2 to the OLAF annual report for 2002. 
Prikaz 5 Nepravilnosti, ki so jih prijavile države članice v letu 2002 Število primerov Zneski Vir: Priloga 2 letnega poročila OLAF za leto 2002.
C 269/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.11.2004 24. 
C 269/8 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 4.11.2004 24.
Italy notifies cases on the basis of the irregularity report from the control or investigation body. 
Italija poroča o primerih na podlagi poročila o nepravilnostih, ki ga pripravi organ za nadzor in preiskave.
In some instances these bodies have not verified that the alleged irregular payments have been made. 
V nekaterih primerih ti organi niso preverili, ali so bila domnevno nepravilna plačila opravljena.
This has resulted in overstatements of amounts to be recovered in the ECR. 
Zaradi tega je prišlo v ECR do previsoko navedenih zneskov za izterjavo.
For 91 of these cases in the ECR, Member States had not provided information on the amounts involved. 
Za 91 primerov v ECR države članice niso predložile podatkov o vključenih zneskih.
Of which, 37 had been notified between 1979 and 1998. 
Od teh jih je bilo 37 prijavljenih med letoma 1979 in 1998.
The Court brought this to the attention of OLAF in August 2002. 
Sodišče je avgusta leta 2002 na to opozorilo OLAF.
A year later OLAF had not requested updated information from Member States for these cases. 
Eno leto kasneje OLAF od držav članic ni zahteval dopolnjenih podatkov za te primere.
The ECR provides for penalties and interest to be recorded separately (1). 
ECR določa, da je treba kazni in obresti evidentirati ločeno (1).
Some Member States, however, included penalties and interest in the principal (Spain and Ireland). 
Kljub temu pa so nekatere države članice vključile kazni in obresti v glavnico (Španija, Irska).
Information on penalties and interest was recorded in less than 4 % of the cases in the ECR. 
Podatki o kaznih in obrestih so bili v ECR evidentirani v manj kot 4 % primerov.
Only 5 % of cases reported or updated in 2002 contained information on penalties. 
Samo 5 % primerov, prijavljenih ali dopolnjenih v letu 2002, je vsebovalo podatke o kaznih.
For example, the product description had not been completed in some 47 % of cases notified for 2002 (2). 
Tako na primer v približno 47 % primerov, prijavljenih za leto 2002 (2), ni bil opravljen opis proizvoda.
In 7 % of cases the type of irregularity had not been identified and in 4 % nor had the detection method. 
V 7 % ni bila opredeljena vrsta nepravilnosti, v 4 % pa ni bila opredeljena metoda odkrivanja.
Checks on data: unsatisfactory 28. 
Preverjanje podatkov: nezadovoljivo 28.
Because there was no procedure for systematically checking the completeness and accuracy of the ECR database on the spot against information on irregularity cases held in Member States, in 2002 and 2003 OLAF asked Member States to verify that the data in the ECR was accurate. 
Ker ni bilo postopka za sistematično preverjanje popolnosti in točnosti zbirke podatkov ECR na kraju samem, glede na podatke o primerih nepravilnosti, ki jih imajo države članice, je OLAF v letih 2002 in 2003 države članice zaprosil, da preverijo točnost podatkov v ECR.
For the most part Member States did not address irregularities notified before 2002. 
Države članice večinoma niso preverjale nepravilnosti, prijavljenih pred letom 2002.
Most Member States drew attention to discrepancies between Member State data and the ECR. 
Večina držav članic je opozorila na neskladnosti med podatki držav članic in ECR.
OLAF does not have an analysis of these discrepancies, of the reasons for them, of corrective action or of the changes made to the ECR. 
OLAF nima analize o teh nesklad-nostih, razlogih zanje, popravnih ukrepih ali spremembah, opravljenih v ECR.
Nor has OLAF sought to check that Member States have notified all of the cases they should have notified, or verified whether Member States have improperly closed cases and written down the impact of the irregularity to zero. 
OLAF tudi ni poskušal preveriti, ali so države članice prijavile vse primere, ki bi jih morale prijaviti, oziroma ali so države članice neustrezno zaključile primere in učinek nepravilnosti opredelile kot ničeln.
(1) Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 requires Ôthe financial consequences of the irregularity to be reportedŐ and Article 5 Ôthe judicial and administrative procedures instituted with a view to (...) applying sanc-tionsŐ. 
(1) Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 595/91 z dne 4. marca 1991 v členu 3 zahteva „poro-čanje o finančnih posledicah nepravilnosti“, v členu 5 pa „uvedbo sodnih in upravnih postopkov z namenom (...) izvajanja kazni“.
(2) Source: paragraph 11.2 of the Annual Report for 2002 on the Protection of the Financial Interests of the Communities and the fight against fraud. 
(2) Vir: odstavek 11.2 Letnega poročila za leto 2002 o varstvu finančnih interesov Skupnosti in boju proti goljufijam.
Quality of information about irregular payments: incomplete and inconsistent 30. 
Kakovost podatkov o nepravilnih plačilih: nepopolni in nedosledni 30.
For the reasons set out in paragraphs 21 to 29 and 31 and 32, the ECR database (and the figures relating to CAP irregularities and debts published in the CommissionŐs 2002 Report on the fight against fraud) cannot be considered reliable, complete and accurate. 
Zaradi razlogov, navedenih v odstavkih 21 do 29 ter 31 in 32, se zbirka podatkov ECR (in številke v zvezi z nepravilnostmi in dolgovi iz naslova SKP, objavljene v Poročilu Komisije o boju proti goljufijam za leto 2002) ne more obravnavati kot zanesljiv, popoln in točen vir.
In addition to cases notified by Member States, OLAF itself initiates investigations of some irregularity cases in the CAP sector (as elsewhere in the Community budget). 
Poleg primerov, ki jih prijavijo države članice, OLAF sam sproži preiskave nekaterih primerov nepravilnosti v sektorju SKP (kot drugje v proračunu Skupnosti).
OLAF maintains a Case Management System (CMS) database to record the progress of these cases. 
OLAF hrani zbirko podatkov, ki se imenuje „sistem upravljanja primerov“ (Case Management System, CMS), v katero evidentira potek teh primerov.
The CMS does not show whether the case is recorded in the ECR nor, if appropriate, whether it has been charged to Member States under the clearance-of-accounts procedure (see paragraphs 34 to 37). 
CMS ne pokaže, ali je primer evidentiran v ECR niti, kadar je to primerno, ali je obračunan v breme držav članic v skladu s postopkom potrditve obračunov (glej odstavke 34 do 37).
Of a sample of 26 cases recorded in the CMS, only 13 could be traced satisfactorily to either an entry in the ECR or to closure of the case because no irregularity had been detected. 
Iz vzorca 26 primerov, evidentiranih v CMS, je bilo le trinajstim mogoče zadovoljivo slediti do vpisa v ECR ali do zaključka primera, ker ni bila odkrita nobena nepravilnost.
The CommissionŐs 2002 Report on the fight against fraud significantly overstates the cumulative total for reported irregularities against the CAP. 
Poročilo Komisije o boju proti goljufijam za leto 2002 vsebuje previsoko kumulativno vsoto prijavljenih nepravilnosti v zvezi s SKP.
The sources of the overstatement are: (a) 844 million euro where amounts relating to irregularities detected before payment, notified in Italian lira, were recorded as the same number of euro; (b) at least 50 million euro for notifications double counted because they were shown as being detected both before and after payment in the ECR; (c) at least 19 million euro for amounts reported in national currency and recorded as euro without conversion. 
Previsoke številke so: (a) 844 milijonov EUR, kadar so zneski v zvezi z nepravilnostmi, odkritimi pred plačilom, ki so bili prijavljeni v italijanskih lirah, zapisani v isti številki v eurih; (b) vsaj 50 milijonov EUR za dvojno štete prijave, ker so bile v ECR prikazane, kot da so bile odkrite pred plačilom in tudi po njem; (c) vsaj 19 milijonov EUR za zneske, prijavljene v nacionalni valuti in evidentirane v eurih brez pretvorbe.
Recovery and writing off: responsibilities of Member States and the Commission 33. 
Izterjava in odpis: obveznosti držav članic in Komisije 33.
Member States must: (a) satisfy themselves that CAP transactions are carried out and executed correctly; (b) prevent and detect irregularities; (c) recover sums lost as a result of irregularities or negligence, in which case they may retain 20 % of the amounts recovered (3); (3) Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 (OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 
Države članice morajo: (a) prepričati se, da so transakcije iz naslova SKP pravilno opravljene; (b) preprečiti in odkriti nepravilnosti; (c) izterjati zneske, izgubljene zaradi nepravilnosti ali malomarnosti, pri čemer lahko zadržijo 20 % izterjanih zneskov (3); (3) Člen 8(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1258/1999 z dne 17. maja 1999 (UL L 160, 26.6.1999, str.
An Italian investigation agency reported a company for fraudulently obtaining CAP subsidies for processing tomatoes. 
Italijanska preiskovalna agencija je prijavila podjetje, ki je z goljufijo pridobilo subvencije iz SKP za predelavo paradižnikov.
The amount involved is 2,71 million euro. 
Šlo je za znesek v višini 2,71 milijona EUR.
In fact the claims were made but never paid. 
Dejansko pa so bili zahtevki vloženi, a nikoli izplačani.
4.11.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/9 (d) (e) notify the Commission of sums which are outstanding; and of sums which are unlikely to be recovered. (d) 39. the Commission will use information about the incidence of irregularities for the management of the CAP to improve control procedures. 
4.11.2004 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 269/9 (d) (e) obvestiti Komisijo o neplačanih zneskih; in o zneskih, ki verjetno ne bodo izterjani. (d) Komisija podatke o pojavu nepravilnosti uporabi za upravljanje SKP, da bi izboljšala postopke nadzora.
The arrangements were unsatisfactory in all four respects. 
Ureditve so bile nezadovoljive z vseh štirih vidikov.
34. recovered should be borne by the Community, or borne by the Member State concerned (on the grounds that non-recovery is the consequence of negligence or irregularity by that Member State (1)). 
To zmanjšuje verjetnost izterjave, ker sredstva izginjajo, podjetja se zapirajo, posamezni prejemniki izginejo ali umrejo itd.; 34. izterjati, bremeniti Skupnost ali zadevno državo članico (če je neizterjava posledica malomarnosti ali nepravilnosti te države članice) (1).
Where the Commission decides that the financial consequences of non-recovery should be borne by the Member State concerned, the decision is taken as part of the Ôclearance-of-accounts procedureŐ. 
Kadar Komisija sklene, da mora finančne posledice neiz-terjave prevzeti zadevna država članica, se odločitev sprejme v skladu s postopkom „potrditve obračunov“.
This is the procedure in which the Commission decides whether expenditure undertaken by paying agencies has been carried out in accordance with EC law and should be definitively charged to EU budget. 
V tem postopku se Komisija odloči, ali so odhodki, ki so jih prevzele plačilne agencije, izvršeni v skladu z zakonodajo ES in ali naj se dokončno obračunajo v breme proračuna EU.
If sums are to be charged to Member States the Commission deducts them from the monthly payments to finance the CAP which it makes to the paying agency concerned. 
Če se morajo zneski obračunati v breme držav članic, jih Komisija odtegne od mesečnih plačil zadevni plačilni agenciji za financiranje SKP.
OLAF (and formerly UCLAF) is responsible for recommending whether the amounts should be written off to the budget (i.e. borne by the Community taxpayer) or in cases of negligence should be charged to Member States. 
OLAF (in prej UCLAF) mora dati priporočila o tem, ali bi bilo zneske treba odpisati od proračuna (tako da jih prevzamejo davkoplačevalci Skupnosti) ali pa jih v primerih malomarnosti obračunati v breme držav članic.
The Directorate-General for Agriculture is responsible for the Commission decision. 
Generalni direktorat za kmetijstvo je odgovoren za odločitev Komisije.
Community law leaves it to the Commission to judge whether lack of recovery in a given case should be attributed to negligence by a Member State, and its costs borne by national taxpayers. 
Zakonodaja Skupnosti prepušča Komisiji odločitev o tem, ali je neizterjavo v danem primeru treba pripisati malomarnosti države članice in stroške obračunati v breme nacionalnih davkoplačevalcev.
There is, however, relevant European Court of Justice jurisprudence. 
Obstaja pa tudi sodna praksa Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti.
The European Court of Justice ruled in 1989 (2) that in waiting four to 10 years before starting proceedings to recover amounts wrongly paid, the Italian authorities had not acted with the necessary diligence (3). 
To je leta 1989 (2) odločilo, da italijanski organi oblasti niso ravnali dovolj skrbno, ker so čakali štiri do deset let, preden so začeli s postopki za izterjavo nepravilno izplačanih zneskov (3).
This prejudices the likelihood of eventual recovery because assets disappear, companies are liquidated, individual beneficiaries disappear or die etc.; False claims for aid for the production of concentrated wine led to irregular payments of 8,3 million euro. 
V pravilno delujočem sistemu: Komisija odloči, ali mora za zneske, ki jih ni mogoče Napačni zahtevki za pomoč za proizvodnjo koncen-triranega vina so bili podlaga za nepravilna plačila v višini 8,3 milijona EUR.
The irregularity was first reported to the Greek paying agency in 1990. 
Nepravilnost je bila prvič prijavljena grški plačilni agenciji leta 1990.
The Greek Ministry of Agriculture did not classify it as an irregularity until December 1996. 
Grško ministrstvo za kmetijstvo do decembra 1996 tega ni obravnavalo kot nepravilnost.
The case, which has been referred to the Greek courts, has still not been heard and no monies have been recovered. (a) (b) (c) Member States will take all required action to recover sums irregularly paid; the Commission will encourage Member States to operate effectively; the Commission will make appropriate judgements about whether sums irregularly paid and not recovered are charged to the Community budget or to the individual Member State concerned; (b) recovery is further delayed where recovery procedures are suspended until the outcome of any associated fraud case is decided (for example, in Italy). 
Primer, ki je bil predložen v obravnavo grškemu sodišču, še vedno ni bil sodno obravnavan in denarna sredstva niso bila izterjana. (a) (b) (c) države članice sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe, da izterjajo nepravilno izplačane zneske; Komisija spodbuja države članice, da delujejo učinkovito; Komisija sprejme ustrezne odločitve o tem, ali se za nepravilno izplačane zneske, ki niso izterjani, bremeni proračun Skupnosti ali posamezno državo članico, ki jo to zadeva; (b) z izterjavo se zavlačuje tudi, kadar so postopki izterjave začasno ustavljeni, dokler se ne sprejme odločitev o rezultatu kakršnega koli povezanega primera goljufije (na primer Italija).
Fraud cases require proof of intent before someone can be found guilty which is not necessary for the recovery of a de facto irregular payment; (c) some Member States do not give CAP debts preferential status (there is no EU legislation requiring them to do so); In early 1992 a combined UCLAF/German investigation proved skimmed-milk powder from intervention stocks, exported with refunds, had not been placed on the market outside the EU. 
Za primere goljufije je potreben dokaz o naklepnem dejanju, preden je mogoče koga spoznati za krivega, kar pa ni potrebno za izterjavo dejanskega nepravilnega plačila; (c) nekatere države članice skupni kmetijski politiki ne dajejo prednostnega statusa (evropska zakonodaja tega od njih ne zahteva); V začetku leta 1992 je preiskava, ki sta jo izvedla UCLAF in Nemčija, dokazala, da posneto mleko v prahu iz intervencijskih zalog, ki je bilo izvoženo z izvoznimi nadomestili, ni bilo dano na trg zunaj EU.
Irregular payments of export refunds amounted to 24,9 million euro to a German company and 18,6 million euro to a Belgian one. 
Nepravilna plačila izvoznih nadomestil nemškemu podjetju so znašala 24,9 milijona EUR, belgijskemu podjetju pa 18,6 milijona EUR.
Despite a request from the Commission in February 1993, Germany did not issue recovery orders until August 1995. 
Nemčija kljub prošnji, ki jo je Komisija poslala februarja 1993, ni izdala nalogov za izterjavo do avgusta 1995.
In August 1996 an offer was made to pay 5,1 million euro (being the value of the available assets of the German com-pany). 
Avgusta 1996 je bila izražena ponudba za plačilo 5,1 milijona EUR (kar je bila vrednost razpoložljivih sredstev nemškega podjetja).
This was rejected by the Commission in April 1997. 
Komisija je to ponudbo aprila 1997 zavrnila.
By December 1999 the assets had diminished to 1,5 million euro. 
Do decembra 1999 so se sredstva zmanjšala na 1,5 milijona EUR.
None of the subsidies totalling 43,5 million euro has been recovered. 
Izterjana ni bila nobena od subvencij v skupni vrednosti 43,5 milijona EUR.
(1) Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991. 
(1) Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 595/91 z dne 4. marca 1991, člen 5(2).
(2) The Court of Justice ruled that Member States should respect the obligation of diligence which Ôimplies that the Member States must take steps to rectify irregularities promptlyŐ, adding that Ôwith the passage of time, recovery of sums wrongly paid is likely to become more complicated or impossible for reasons such as the fact that the undertakings may have ceased trading or accounting documents may have been lostŐ. 
(2) Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je odločilo, da morajo države članice ravnati s potrebno skrbnostjo, kar „pomeni, da morajo države članice sprejeti ukrepe za hitro popravo nepravilnosti“, in dodalo, da „po preteku daljšega časa povračilo napačno izplačanih zneskov običajno postane bolj zapleteno ali nemogoče zaradi razlogov, kot so dejstva, da je podjetje prenehalo poslovati ali da so se morda izgubile računovodske listine“.
(3) Case C-34/89 of 11 October 1990, Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities. 
(3) Primer C-34/89 z dne 11. oktobra 1990, Italijanska republika proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti.
C 269/10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.11.2004 (d) there is inadequate use of procedures to offset debts against other CAP payments which are due. 
C 269/10 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 4.11.2004 (d) postopki za poravnavo dolgov z drugimi plačili iz naslova SKP se ne uporabljajo dovolj.
Offset procedures between paying agencies (for example in Spain, France, Italy and Portugal) or within the same paying agency (for example in Denmark) are not used by either because such offset is precluded under national law or because of inadequate communication channels; (e) national legislation in some Member States does not require a guarantee to be lodged, equivalent to the amount in dispute, before an appeal can be made (the Court made this observation in 2000 in the context of olive oil consumption aid irregularities (1)); (f) the Commission has, to date, refused to accept offers to settle for amounts referred to it by the Member States. 
Postopki poravnave med plačilnimi agencijami (na primer v Španiji, Franciji, Italiji in na Portugalskem) ali v okviru ene plačilne agencije (na primer na Danskem) se ne uporabljajo bodisi, ker tako poravnavo onemogoča nacionalna zakonodaja, bodisi zaradi neustreznih komunikacijskih kanalov; (e) nacionalna zakonodaja v nekaterih državah članicah ne zahteva pologa garancije, ki ustreza spornemu znesku, pred vložitvijo pritožbe (Sodišče je podalo to pripombo leta 2000 glede nepravilnosti v zvezi s pomočjo za porabo olivnega olja) (1); (f) Komisija do zdaj ni hotela sprejeti ponudb za poravnavo zneskov, ki so ji jih predložile države članice.
These are calculated on the basis of the assets available to the debtor and are lower than the debt. 
Te so izračunane na podlagi sredstev, ki so na voljo dolžniku, in so nižje od dolga.
However, even if recovery procedures were faster and recovery possibilities maximised, some debts would still have to be written off because of insolvency, death, official error, equity, cost effectiveness etc. It is not possible to estimate how much would be written off for these reasons. 
Tudi če bi bili postopki izterjave hitrejši in možnosti za izterjavo zelo velike, bi bilo treba nekatere dolgove še vedno odpisati zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti, smrti, uradne napake, pravice iz lastništva, stroškovne učinkovitosti itd. Ni mogoče oceniti, koliko dolgov bi bilo odpisanih zaradi teh razlogov.
The Commission has limited powers to influence the way in which Member States carry out their responsibilities under the regulation. 
Komisija ima omejena pooblastila, da vpliva na to, kako države članice izvajajo svoje odgovornosti v skladu s predpisi.
It cannot intervene in Member States, administrative or judicial procedures in order to speed them up. 
Ne more poseči v upravne ali sodne postopke držav članic, zato da bi jih pospešila.
On the other hand: (a) the Commission can take action to recover the value of old debts from Member States, on the basis of the European Court of Justice ruling referred to in paragraph 37; (b) Community law provides an incentive to Member States to recover monies unduly paid in that they may retain 20 % of amounts recovered. 
Vendar pa: (a) lahko Komisija sprejme ukrepe za izterjavo vrednosti starih dolgov od držav članic na podlagi odločitve Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti, navedene v odstavku 37; (b) zakonodaja Skupnosti zagotavlja spodbudo državam članicam za izterjavo nepravilno plačanih denarnih sredstev, saj lahko zadržijo 20% izterjanih zneskov.
In view of the cumulative recovery rate of 17 % this incentive cannot be considered to have achieved its objective. 
Glede na 17-odstotno kumulativno stopnjo izterjave pa ni mogoče sklepati, da je ta spodbuda dosegla svoj cilj.
OLAF does not have a reliable record of amounts retained. 
OLAF nima zanesljive evidence o zadržanih zneskih.
Commission decisions on who should bear the cost of irregular payments which are not recovered: no clear principles 43. 
Sklepi Komisije o tem, kdo naj nosi stroške nepravilnih plačil, ki niso bila izterjana: ni jasnih načel 43.
According to the ECR, since 1971 a total of 110 million euro has been written off against the EU budget and 142 million euro charged to Member States. 
Po podatkih ECR je bilo od leta 1971 od proračuna EU odpisanih skupaj 110 milijonov EUR in v breme držav članic obračunanih 142 milijonov EUR.
These amounts are small (10 %) in relation to the total amount to be recovered, partly because Member States have proposed few cases to be written off as irrecoverable and partly because the Commission action to clear up the old debts has not been timely. 
Ti zneski so v primerjavi s skupnim zneskom za izterjavo majhni (10 %), delno zato, ker so države članice predlagale malo primerov za odpis kot neizterljive, in delno zato, ker ukrep Komisije za ureditev starih dolgov ni bil pravočasen.
(1) Special Report No 11/2000, paragraph 101 (OJ C 215, 27.7.2000). 
(1) Posebno poročilo št. 11/2000, odstavek 101 (UL C 215, 27.7.2000).
The Commission had no adequate criteria for making recommendations for writing off nor on the nature of supporting evidence required. 
Komisija ni imela primernih meril, da bi dala priporočila za odpis ali za vrsto potrebnih dokazil.