natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
25 recital 22 of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. 
25 Uvodna izjava 22 Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005.
26 sWot-analysis: analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. it aims to develop, review and update strategy and planning taking into account the needs of stakeholders and available resources. 
26 Analiza SWOT: analiza prednosti, slabosti, priložnosti in nevarnosti. Namenjena je pripravi, pregledovanju in posodabljanju strategije in načrtovanja ob upoštevanju potreb udeleženih strani in razpoložljivih virov.
27 sfcs opinions to justify the specific needs for investment support under measure 122: (a) sfc opinion on climate change and forestry; (b) sfc opinion on wood mobilisation; (c) sfc opinion on valuation and financing methods for non-wood forest woods and services and; (d) sfc opinion on forestry measures in rural development. 
27 Mnenja stalnega odbora za gozdarstvo (SOG), uporabljena za utemeljitev specifičnih potreb za naložbeno podporo iz ukrepa 122: a) mnenje SOG o podnebnih spremembah in gozdarstvu; b) mnenje SOG o proizvodnji lesa; c) mnenje SOG o metodah vrednotenja in financiranja za nelesne gozdne dobrine in storitve in d) mnenje SOG o gozdarskih ukrepih v okviru razvoja podeželja.
28 coM(2004) 490 final of 14 July 2004. 
28 COM(2004) 490 final z dne 14. julija 2004.
15 kEY FEATURES nOT SUFFICIEnTLY dEFInEd ECOnOmIC VALUE OF FORESTS 23. the regulations do not lay down a definition of ‘economic value of forests’ which the measure 122 is intended to improve, although a clear definition is essential in order to assess whether the projects funded have actually increased or not the economic value of the forests supported under the scheme29 (see paragraph 49). according to Eurostat30 the economic value of a forest comprises essentially the value of the land and the value of the stock of wood growing on it. 
15 kljUčne značIlnostI nIso dovolj dobro oPredeljene GosPodarska vrednost Gozdov 23. V uredbah ni opredeljen pojem „gospodarska vrednost gozdov“, ki naj bi jo povečal ukrep 122, čeprav je jasna opredelitev bistvena za oceno, ali so financirani projekti dejansko povečali gospodarsko vrednost gozdov, ki so prejeli podporo iz sheme, ali ne29 (glej odstavek 49).
However, as for both these values the most objective measurement tool is the market price, the market value of a plot of woodland may vary widely depending on factors such as growing capacity of the soil, the tree species composition, age of the stand, location, access and other factors. furthermore, such values are not readily available. 
Ker pa je za obe vrednosti najbolj objektivno orodje merjenja tržna vrednost, so lahko tržne vrednosti gozdnih parcel zelo različne, odvisno od dejavnikov, kot so proizvodna sposobnost zemljišča, sestava drevesnih vrst, starost sestoja, lokacija, dostop in drugi dejavniki. Poleg tega takšne vrednosti niso zlahka dostopne. velIkost Gozdne PosestI v PrImerjavI s Prejeto PodPoro 24.
29 additionally, there is an inherent complexity linked to the fact that the concrete outcomes of most forest investments can only be ascertained in the long term, at which time the value of the forests may depend less on any investments made than on other circumstances or market factors. 
29 Poleg tega obstaja naravna zapletenost, ki je posledica dejstva, da je mogoče konkretne izložke večine gozdnih naložb oceniti šele po dolgem času, ko je lahko vrednost gozdov manj odvisna od morebitnih izvršenih naložb kot od drugih razmer ali tržnih dejavnikov.
30 Eurostat, The European Framework for integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting for Forests — IEEAF, office for official publications of the European communities, Luxembourg, 2002. 
30 Eurostat, The European Framework for integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting for Forests – IEEAF (Evropski sistem integriranih okoljskih in ekonomskih računov za gozdove – IEEAF), Urad za uradne publikacije Evropskih skupnosti, Luxembourg, 2002.
31 Source:unEcE/fao temperate and Boreal forest resource assessment 2000 (tBfra-2000) database. 
31 Vir: UNECE/FAO Temperate and Boreal Forest Resource Assessment 2000 (TBFRA‐2000) Database (podatkovna zbirka UNECE/FAO za oceno virov za gozdove zmernega in borealnega pasu sveta 2000 ( TBFRA-2000)).
32 a number of separated properties managed under one corporate strategy could constitute a forestry holding according to unEcE definition and thus receive as such public support but this was not the case in the audited cases of Hungary and slovenia. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
32 V skladu z opredelitvijo UNECE lahko sestavlja gozdno posest več ločenih posesti, ki se upravljajo v okviru ene podjetniške strategije, zato lahko kot taka prejmejo takšno javno podporo, vendar v revidiranih primerih v Madžarski in Sloveniji to ni bilo tako. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2013 – Podpora Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov
SIzE OF THE bEnEFICIARY 25. according to the legal basis support in the forestry sector should avoid any negative effect on competition33. for other forestry measures (such as the forestry component of measure 12334) support is limited to microenterprises35. as such a condition is not foreseen for measure 122 the absence of any preventive restriction in terms of size, main economic activity or legal status of the beneficiary could reinforce the market position of large enterprises36. 
V skladu s pravno podlago podpora v gozdarskem sektorju ne sme imeti nobenega negativnega vpliva na konkurenco33. Za druge gozdarske ukrepe (kot so komponenta za gozdarstvo v ukrepu 12334) je podpora omejena na mikro-podjetja35. Ker takšen pogoj za ukrep 122 ni predviden, bi lahko pomanjkanje preventivnih omejitev pri velikosti, glavni gospodarski dejavnosti ali pravnem statusu upravičenca okrepilo tržni položaj velikih podjetij36. načrtI za GosPodarjenje z GozdovI 26.
FOREST mAnAGEmEnT pLAnS 26. according to the legal basis, investments shall be based on forest management plans for forest holdings above a certain size to be defined by the Member states in their programmes37. the audit found that Member states set very different sizes of forest holdings above which a forest management plan was required and that in a Member state (austria) 99 % of private forest owners were exonerated from that obligation 38. 
V skladu s pravno podlago naložbe temeljijo na načrtih za gospodarjenje z gozdovi, kar velja za gozdne posesti nad določeno velikostjo, ki jo opredelijo države članice v svojih programih.37 Z revizijo je bilo ugotovljeno, da so države članice zelo različno določile, nad katero velikostjo gozdnih posesti je treba zanje pripraviti načrt za gospodarjenje, in da je bilo v eni državi članici (Avstrija) 99 % lastnikov zasebnih gozdov oproščenih te obveznosti38. sPravIlo In obnova Po končnem PosekU 27.
HARVESTInG And REGEnERATIOn AFTER FInAL FELLInG 27. according to the legal provisions39, supported operations for the improvement of the economic value of forests concern investments at the level of the forestry holding and may include investments for harvesting equipment, while activities related to regeneration after final felling are excluded from support. the court considers that it does not seem coherent on the one hand to support investment in harvesting equipment and on the other to exclude support for regeneration after final felling. 
V skladu s pravnimi določbami39 se podprte operacije za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov nanašajo na naložbe na ravni gozdne posesti in lahko vključujejo naložbe v opremo za sečnjo, medtem ko so dejavnosti, povezane z obnovo po končnem poseku, izključene iz podpore. Sodišče meni, da ni skladno po eni strani podpirati naložb v opremo za sečnjo, po drugi pa iz podpore izključiti obnovo po končnem poseku.
33 preamble (32) of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005: ‘this support (in forestry) should avoid distorting competition and should be market-neutral’. 
33 Uvodna izjava (32) Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005: „Ta podpora [v gozdarstvu] se mora izogibati izkrivljanju konkurence in mora biti tržno nevtralna“.
34 Measure ‘adding value to agricultural and forestry products’ (measure 123), article 28(3) of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005: ‘in the case of forestry support shall be limited to micro-enterprises’. 
34 Ukrep „dodajanje vrednosti kmetijskim in gozdarskim proizvodom“ (ukrep 123), člen 28(3) Uredbe (ES) št.
35 i.e. enterprises which employ fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed 2 million euro. 
1698/2005):„V primeru gozdarstva je podpora omejena na mikro-podjetja.“ 35 Torej na podjetja z manj kot 10 zaposlenimi, katerih letni promet in/ali letna bilanca stanja ne presega 2 milijona EUR.
36 in their reply to the court, to the question why they didn’t activate the measure swedish authorities explained that support for the purpose of increasing production or the real estate value should not be given as it might distort competition between forest owners. 
36 Švedski organi so v svojem odgovoru Sodišču pojasnili, da ukrepa niso aktivirali, ker menijo, da se ne bi smela dodeljevati podpora za namene povečanja proizvodnje ali nepremičninske vrednosti, saj lahko povzroči izkrivljanje konkurence med lastniki gozdov.
By contrast, support is given only for environmental purposes. 
V nasprotju s tem se podpora dodeljuje samo za okoljske namene.
37 article 27(2) of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. forest management plans appropriate to the size and use of the forest area should be based on relevant national legislation as well as existing land use plans and they should adequately cover the forest resources (article 18 of regulation (Ec) no 1974/2006). 
37 Člen 27(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005. Načrti za gospodarjenje z gozdovi, ki ustrezajo velikosti in uporabi gozdnega območja, temeljijo na ustrezni nacionalni zakonodaji in na obstoječih načrtih za uporabo zemljišč ter ustrezno zajemajo gozdne vire (člen 18 Uredbe (ES) št.
16 38 While in one Member state (spain) a minimum size of 15 hectares was set so as to increase the forest areas under management plan, in another (austria), the rural development programme set such a high threshold for a forest management plan to be compulsory, 1 000 ha, that in practice 99 % of private forest owners were exonerated from the obligation to produce a forest management plan when claiming aid under measure 122. 
1974/2006). 16 38 Medtem ko je bila v eni državi članici (Španija) določena minimalna velikost 15 hektarjev zaradi povečanja gozdnih površin, za katere se uporabljajo načrti za gospodarjenje z gozdovi, je bil v drugi (Avstrija) v programu razvoja podeželja za obvezno pripravo načrta za gospodarjenje z gozdovi določen tako visok prag, in sicer 1 000 ha, da v praksi 99 % lastnikom zasebnih gozdov pri vložitvi zahtevka za pomoč iz ukrepa 122 ni bilo treba predložiti načrta za gospodarjenje z gozdovi.
39 article 18 of regulation (Ec) no 1974/2006. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
39 Člen 18 Uredbe (ES) št. 1974/2006. Posebno poročilo št.
17 FOR THE pROGRAmmES AUdITEd, THE InITIAL AnALYSIS bEFORE AdOpTIOn wAS nOT AdEqUATE 28. the Eafrd is implemented in the Member states through rdps that should include an ex ante evaluation and an analysis of the situation in terms of strengths, weaknesses and identified needs, as well as the strategy chosen to meet them and optimise the allocation of resources. 
17 PrI revIdIranIh ProGramIh je bIla Prvotna analIza Pred sPrejetjem ProGrama neUstrezna 28. EKSRP se v državah članicah izvaja prek PRP, ki morajo vsebovati predhodno vrednotenje in analizo razmer z vidika prednosti, slabosti in opredeljenih potreb ter strategijo, izbrano za reševanje teh potreb in optimizacijo dodeljevanja virov.
29. in the rdps of the five Member states40 or regions visited, the identification of needs, to the extent that it was undertaken, related to the forestry sector as a whole, which makes it difficult to establish links between particular needs and measures. 
29. V PRP petih obiskanih držav članic40 ali regij se je opredelitev potreb, v obsegu, v katerem je bila opravljena, nanašala na gozdarski sektor kot celoto, zato je težko ugotoviti povezave med posameznimi potrebami in ukrepi.
30. the audit found that such needs were generally not adequately described in the rdps (see box 1). in particular, there was insufficient analysis and justification of priorities of the different types of forest areas and beneficiaries. 
30. Med revizijo je bilo odkrito, da takšne potrebe v PRP na splošno niso bile dobro opisane (glej okvir 1). Zlasti ni bilo zadostne analize in utemeljitve prioritet pri različnih vrstah gozdnih površin in upravičencev.
Moreover, the required description of the economic opportunities was set out in general terms only or even had not been presented at all. 
Poleg tega je bil zahtevani opis gospodarskih možnosti določen le na splošno ali pa sploh ni bil predstavljen.
40 Galicia(spain),tuscany (italy), Hungary, austria, and slovenia. bOX 1 EXAmpLES OF UnCLEAR IdEnTIFICATIOn OF nEEdS In THE RdpS OF THE mEmbER STATES in slovenia, low investment capacity was identified as a weakness in the forestry sector, however there was not a separate analysis of needs in respect of type of beneficiaries, be these enterprises, legal entities or physical persons. as a consequence the court found that also forestry enterprises with high investment capacity could benefit from significant amounts of public support. in austria, the rdp does not set out which weaknesses of the forest sector the measure is intended to redress. although in the rdp there is a quantitative estimation of the areas targeted by the support, it is not explained why those areas require public funding. 
40 Galicija (Španija), Toskana (Italija), Madžarska, Avstrija in Slovenija. okvIr 1 PrImera nejasne oPredelItve Potreb v PrP držav članIc V Sloveniji je bila kot slabost v gozdarskem sektorju ugotovljena opredeljena nizka naložbena zmogljivost, vendar ni bilo nobene ločene analize potreb glede vrste upravičencev, ne glede na to, ali so bila to podjetja, ki so pravne osebe, ali fizične osebe. Posledično je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so lahko precejšnje zneske javne podpore prejela tudi gozdna podjetja z visoko naložbeno zmogljivostjo. V avstriji PRP ne določa, katere slabosti v gozdarskem sektorju naj bi ukrep odpravil.
31. the commission approved the rural development programmes although they did not define any specific need of any private forest owners of financial support to improve the economic value of their forests. 
31. Komisija je odobrila programe razvoja podeželja, čeprav v njih niso bile opredeljene nobene specifične potrebe lastnikov zasebnih gozdov po finančni podpori za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti njihovih gozdov.
Bulgaria, romania and Greece, although they had planned large financial amounts, had not declared any expenditure by the end of 2011(Greece and romania) or very small amounts (Bulgaria). the court was informed by these Member states that their managing authorities decided to transfer the amounts of financial resources planned for measure 122 to other measures (Bulgaria and romania reallocated around 80 % and 33 % respectively of the amounts initially planned), to a later implementation of the measure within the programming period or even to discontinue the measure (Greece). 
Bolgarija, Romunija in Grčija kljub temu, da so načrtovale velike finančne zneske, do konca leta 2011 niso prijavile nobenih odhodkov (Grčija in Romunija) ali pa zelo majhne zneske (Bolgarija). Te države članice so Sodišče obvestile, da so se njihovi organi upravljanja odločili, da finančne zneske, načrtovane za ukrep 122, prenesejo v druge ukrepe (Bolgarija je prenesla okoli 80 %, Romunija pa okoli 33 % prvotno načrtovanih zneskov), da ukrep izvedejo pozneje v programskem obdobju ali pa celo, da ga ukinejo (Grčija). velIke slabostI v IzvajanjU Glede na zastavljene cIlje PrImerI javne PodPore so bIlI nesorazmerno vIsokI Glede na dejanske Potrebe 33.
SIGnIFICAnT wEAknESSES In THE ImpLEmEnTATIOn HAVInG REGARd TO THE ObjECTIVES SET CASES OF pUbLIC SUppORT dISpROpORTIOnATELY HIGH COmpAREd TO REAL nEEdS 33. regarding the relationship between the size of the forest areas declared by the applicants and the level of public support granted, the audit found that certain Member states (Hungary and slovenia), while setting relatively high ceilings for public support41 did not establish any proportionality between the size of the forest areas declared by the applicants and the level of public support which could be granted. in one Member state (slovenia), a beneficiary having declared three hectares of forest areas was approved for an investment of 1,1 million euro in respect of harvesting and ancillary machinery and received 375 000 euro from the Eafrd. another Member state (austria) financed until 2009 beneficiaries who were not forest owners for biomass processing investments without requiring them to declare any specific forest area, for example a beneficiary, with no forest land declared was approved for a project of 132 000 euro and received 17 000 euro from the Eafrd. 
V zvezi z razmerjem med velikostjo gozdnih površin, ki so jih prijavili vložniki, in stopnjo dodeljene javne podpore, je bilo med revizijo ugotovljeno, da so določene države članice (Madžarska in Slovenija) sicer določile relativno visoke zgornje meje za javno podporo41, vendar niso določile nobene sorazmernosti med velikostjo gozdnih površin, ki so jih prijavili vložniki, in stopnjo javne podpore, ki jo je bilo mogoče do-deliti. V eni državi članici (Slovenija) je bila upravičencu, ki je prijavil tri hektarje gozdnih zemljišč, odobrena naložba v višini 1,1 milijona EUR za nakup nove mehanizacije in opreme za sečnjo in spravilo lesa ter je prejel 375 000 EUR iz EKSRP. Druga država članica (Avstrija) je do leta 2009 financirala naložbe upravičencev, ki niso bili lastniki gozdov, v predelavo biomase, ne da bi od njih zahtevala prijavo specifične gozdne površine; enemu upravičencu je bil, na primer, ne da bi prijavil gozdno površino, odobren projekt v višini 132 000 EUR in je prejel 17 000 EUR iz EKSRP.
However in Hungary, the managing authorities changed the eligibility requirements in 2010 to make support proportional to the size of the registered forest areas and limited the aid to a maximum of 115 500 euro. 
Na Madžarskem pa so organi upravljanja leta 2010 spremenili zahteve za upravičenost tako, da je postala podpora sorazmerna z velikostjo registriranih gozdnih površin, pomoč pa omejena na največ 115 500 EUR.
41 500 000 euro (si); 735 000 euro (Hu — in 2008). 18 Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
41 500 000 EUR (SI); 735 000 EUR (HU – v letu 2008). 18 Posebno poročilo št. 8/2013 – Podpora Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov
19 InVESTmEnTS nOT COnSIdEREd In LInE wITH THE pROVISIOnS OF THE mEASURE 35. although support under measure 122 may only be provided for investments, the audit found cases of support granted for non-durable goods such as short-cycle consumables (tuscany)42 and operating production costs (austria)43. the court considers that, in general, the acquisition of such non-durable goods is not an investment. similarly, operating costs cannot be considered as investments. 
19 naložbe nIso bIle obravnavane v skladU z določbamI UkrePa 35. Čeprav se lahko podpora iz ukrepa 122 zagotovi samo za naložbe, so bili med revizijo ugotovljeni primeri podpore, dodeljene za netrajnostno blago, kot so potrošni material (Toskana)42 in poslovni stroški (Avstrija)43.
36. in certain Member states (Hungary and slovenia, see annex ii) there was no requirement for the beneficiaries to own or rent the forests where grant-aided machines can be used. investments made by contractors/ service providers cannot be considered as being exclusively for the purposes of a specific forest holding and, as such, cannot be considered as being eligible under the governing regulation (see paragraph 24). 
36. V določenih državah članicah (Madžarska in Slovenija, glej Prilogo II) ni bilo zahteve, da morajo biti upravičenci lastniki ali najemniki gozdov, v katerih je lahko uporabljajo stroje, za katere je bila dodeljena pomoč. Naložb, ki so jih izvedli pogodbeniki/izvajalci storitev, ni mogoče obravnavati kot namenjene izključno za specifično gozdno posest in jih zato ni mogoče šteti za upravičene v skladu z veljavno uredbo (glej odstavek 24). nekatere dejavnostI, fInancIrane Iz UkrePa 122, bI bIlo bolje fInancIratI Iz drUGIh UkrePov eksrP 37.
Eafrd support is implemented via a multiplicity of measures, amongst which consistency 44 shall be ensured. 
Podpora iz EKSRP se izvaja prek številnih ukrepov, med katerimi se zagotavlja usklajenost44.
Given the difference in the maximum aid rate which can be granted depending on the different measures, financing an operation under one measure or another is not neutral in budgetary terms45. it should be noted that the audit did not find any case of double financing of the same operation. 
Glede na razliko v najvišji možni stopnji pomoči, ki se lahko dodeli v okviru posameznih ukrepov, financiranje operacije iz enega ali drugega ukrepa ni proračunsko nevtralno45. Navesti je treba, da med revizijo ni bil odkrit noben primer dvojnega financiranja iste operacije.
However, the audit found cases of investments supported by measure 122 which better correspond to the purpose of the measure 121 ‘Modernisation of agricultural holdings’ which supports investments in agricultural holdings to improve their overall performance. for example, in Hungary, the acquisition of agricultural machinery was financed under measure 122. in tuscany, measure 122 financed the purchase of drying machines for cultivated chestnuts, the renovation of farm buildings not located in woodlands and to be used during harvesting for sorting and temporary storage of chestnuts, as well as the refurbishment of farm premises for storing tools and machines. 
So pa bili odkriti primeri naložb, podprtih iz ukrepa 122, ki bolje ustrezajo namenu ukrepa 121„posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev“, s katerim se podpirajo naložbe v kmetijska gospodarstva za izboljšanje njihove splošne smotrnosti.
42 personal protection equipment such as overalls, helmets, footwear, gloves, first-aid kits, etc. 43 support was granted for the partial reimbursement of operating costs for activities related to bio-mass preparation such as transportation, drying and storage. 
42 Osebna zaščitna oprema, kot so varovalna obleka, čelade, obutev, rokavice, oprema za prvo pomoč itd. 43 Podpora je bila dodeljena za delno povračilo poslovnih stroškov za dejavnosti, povezane s pripravo biomase, kot so prevoz, sušenje in skladiščenje.
44 article2(1)(b) of regulation (Ec) no 1974/2006. 
44 Člen 2(1)(b) Uredbe (ES) št. 1974/2006.
45 for example the maximum aid rate for measure 122 is 10 % higher than the maximum aid rate for measure 121 (Modernisation of agricultural holdings) or measure 123 (adding value to forest products), see annex of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. the general rate for investments under measure 122 is 50 % while for measures 121 and 123 is only 40 %. 
45 Najvišja stopnja pomoči iz ukrepa 122 je na primer 10 % višja od najvišje stopnje pomoči iz ukrepa 121 (posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev) ali ukrepa 123 (dodajanje vrednosti gozdnim proizvodom), glej Prilogo k Uredbi (ES) št. 1698/2005. Splošna stopnja za naložbe v okviru ukrepa 122 je 50 %, v okviru ukrepov 121 in 123 pa samo 40 %.
Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
Posebno poročilo št. 41. Glede naložb v mehanizacijo Sodišče meni, da sam nakup stroja, ki ga je mogoče uporabiti na gozdni, pa tudi drugih površinah, kot so kmetij-ske, sam po sebi ne pomeni povečanja vrednosti katere koli specifične gozdne površine, ki je v lasti lastnika mehanizacije.