natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Programme implementation should start as early as possible in a programme period 59 The adoption of the legislative framework is an essential pre-requisite for the preparation of programmes, because it provides legal certainty to Member States that their spending plans and objectives as set in the programmes are in line with EU 28 2014 annual report In one case, the grant agreement for an ERDF project in Romania stated that the beneficiary had to return part of the grant received if the result indicators defined in the grant agreement were not met when the project was completed. 
Izvajanje programov v programskem obdobju bi se moralo začeti čim prej 59 Sprejetje zakonodajnega okvira je bistven temeljni pogoj za pripravo programov, saj državam članicam zagotavlja pravno varnost, da so njihovi načrti in cilji porabe v programih skladni s cilji EU. Ko Komisija sprejme programe, se lahko začnejo izvajati plačila zanje iz proračuna EU.83 28 Letno poročilo za leto 2014 V enem primeru je bilo v sporazumu o dodelitvi nepovratnih sredstev za projekt ESRR v Romuniji navedeno, da mora upravičenec vrniti del prejetih nepovratnih sredstev, če ob zaključku projekta ne bodo doseženi kazalniki rezultatov, opredeljeni v sporazumu o dodelitvi nepovratnih sredstev.
However, although the result indicators were not fully achieved, there was no impact on the beneficiary in terms of the funding received80. 
Čeprav kazalniki rezultatov niso bili v celoti doseženi, to ni imelo nobenega učinka na upravičenca v zvezi s sredstvi, ki jih je prejel.80 7.
7 Member States spend their Cohesion policy funds in a timely way 2007-2013 2014-2020 2021-2027 
Države članice pravočasno porabljajo sredstva iz skladov kohezijske politike. 2007– 2013 2014– 2020 2021– 2027
60 For both programme periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020, the late adoption of the legislative framework contributed to the late adoption of the programmes84. In addition, for the 2014-2020 period, we noted that there were quality issues with the initial drafts of programming documents submitted by Member States85. For the 2014-2020 period, the legislative package for Cohesion policy was adopted in December 2013, only 2 weeks before the start of the programme period, 5 months later than the equivalent for the previous period86. 
60 Pri obeh programskih obdobjih, tj. obdobju 2007–2013 in obdobju 2014–2020, je pozno sprejetje zakonodajnega okvira prispevalo k poznemu sprejetju programov.84 Poleg tega je Sodišče v zvezi z obdobjem 2014–2020 ugotovilo, da so se pojavile težave s kakovostjo prvotnih osnutkov programskih dokumentov, ki so jih predložile države članice.85 Zakonodajni sveženj za kohezijsko politiko za obdobje 2014–2020 je bil sprejet decembra 2013, kar je le dva tedna pred začetkom programskega obdobja in pet mesecev pozneje kot v prejšnjem obdobju.86 Do decembra 2014, tj. v prvem letu programskega obdobja 2014–2020, je bilo sprejetih le 64 % programov v okviru cilja „naložbe za rast in delovna mesta”.
By December 2014, 1 year into the programme period 2014-2020, only 64 % of the programmes under the “Investment for growth and jobs” goal had been adopted. This has an inevitable knock-on effect on the implementation of the allocated funds and low level of payments in the first years87. To address the problem of the late adoption of the legislative framework, the Commission has encouraged an early political agreement on the post-2020 MFF and adopted its proposals for post 2020 in May and June 2018, 30 months before the start of the new programme period - in line with the time frame we proposed in one of our special reports88. 
To je imelo neizogiben posredni učinek na izvrševanje dodeljenih sredstev in nizko stopnjo plačil v prvih letih.87 Da bi Komisija rešila problem poznega sprejemanja zakonodajnega okvira, je podprla zgoden politični dogovor glede večletnega finančnega okvira po letu 2020 ter maja in junija 2018, kar je 30 mesecev pred začetkom novega programskega obdobja, sprejela predloge za obdobje po letu 2020 v skladu s časovnim okvirom, ki ga je predlagalo Sodišče v enem od posebnih poročil.88 61 Obdobji 2007–2013 in 2014–2020 sta vključevali roke za predložitev partnerskih sporazumov in programov, v predlogu za obdobje 2021–2027 taki roki niso določeni.89 Po drugi strani ti predlogi vključujejo nekatere ukrepe za poenostavitev, ki bi lahko prispevali k pravočasnemu izvajanju, med drugim enostavnejši proces imenovanja in predloge programskih dokumentov.90 Vendar ti ukrepi sami po sebi ne morejo zagotoviti pravočasnega sprejetja programov v primeru zamud pri sprejemanju zakonodajnega svežnja.
2. Delays in implementation of projects should be avoided 62 Member States are responsible for implementing Cohesion projects in a timely manner. 
2. Izogniti bi se bilo treba zamudam pri izvajanju projektov 62 Države članice so odgovorne za pravočasno izvajanje kohezijskih projektov.
Overlapping eligibility periods should be avoided as far as possible and the closure procedure should be finalised promptly after the end of the eligibility period 63 An additional explanation for the slow start in spending is that half way through the programme period, Member States are still able to use funds from the previous period93. These overlapping eligibility periods mean that Member States are allowed to 29 
Čim bolj bi se bilo treba izogibati prekrivanju obdobij upravičenosti, postopek zaključevanja pa bi bilo treba končati takoj po izteku obdobja upravičenosti 63 Počasen začetek porabe sredstev je mogoče dodatno pojasniti s tem, da lahko države članice na sredini programskega obdobja še vedno uporabljajo sredstva iz prejšnjega obdobja.93 Ta prekrivajoča se obdobja upravičenosti pomenijo, da lahko države članice sredstva porabljajo še po koncu programskega obdobja, in sicer dve leti po koncu obdobja 2007–2013 in tri leta po koncu obdobja 2014–2020.94 Predlog za obdobje 2021–2027 predvideva vrnitev k dvema letoma, kar Sodišče odobrava kot prvi 29
For 2021-2027, the proposal is to revert back to 2 years, which we have welcomed as a first step in the right direction towards aligning eligibility as far as possible with the programme period95. After the end of this eligibility period, the closure process – in which Member States prepare and submit their closure documents and the Commission assesses them – adds at least 2 further years. 
korak v pravo smer, tj. k čim večji uskladitvi upravičenosti s programskim obdobjem.95 Po koncu obdobja upravičenosti traja proces zaključevanja, v katerem države članice pripravijo in predložijo dokumente o zaključku, Komisija pa jih oceni, še najmanj dve leti.
64 The timely implementation of programmes depends on the availability of human resources. 
64 Pravočasno izvajanje programov je odvisno od razpoložljivosti kadrovskih virov.
Extended eligibility periods and the closure process ties up these resources96, creating a disincentive to start the programmes of the next programme period, and therefore affecting timely implementation97. 65 To achieve policy effectiveness, it is not only important to set a clear intervention logic in the programming phase (see GP No 3). 
Podaljšana obdobja upravičenosti in proces zaključevanja vežejo te vire96, kar privede do odvračanja od začetka izvajanja programov naslednjega programskega obdobja in tako vpliva na pravočasno izvajanje.97 65 Za doseganje uspešnosti politike ni pomembno le, da se v fazi načrtovanja programov določi jasna intervencijska logika (glej vodilno načelo 3).
It is essential that a results-oriented approach is followed through during the selection phase of projects and during their implementation, as it is mainly the quality of projects funded and their added value in terms of tangible results which will determine the effectiveness of a policy98. In general, the legislative framework has provided for a better consideration of results during the selection and implementation of projects since 2014-2020, but the effective implementation of the rules remains challenging. 
Bistveno je, da v rezultate usmerjenemu pristopu sledi v fazi izbire projektov in med njihovim izvajanjem, saj o uspešnosti politike odločata predvsem kakovost financiranih projektov in njihova dodana vrednost v smislu oprijemljivih rezultatov.98 Na splošno se je z zakonodajnim okvirom od obdobja 2014–2020 zagotovilo boljše upoštevanje rezultatov pri izbiri in izvajanju projektov, uspešno izvajanje pravil pa ostaja izziv.
The European Parliament has stressed that more needs to be done during the implementation stage of programmes to ensure the necessary focus on the delivery of results99. 1. 
Evropski parlament je poudaril, da si je treba v fazi izvajanja programov bolj prizadevati za zagotovitev potrebne osredotočenosti na doseganje rezultatov.99 1.
A result-oriented approach when selecting projects is needed 66 Key elements for a result-oriented approach are as follows: o The selection process should ensure that selected projects comply with the programme and provide an effective contribution to the achievement of its specific objectives. 
Za izbiro projektov je potreben v rezultate usmerjen pristop 66 Ključni elementi za v rezultate usmerjen pristop: o z izbirnim postopkom bi bilo treba zagotoviti, da so izbrani projekti skladni s programom in učinkovito prispevajo k doseganju njegovih specifičnih ciljev.
We have established that for the programmes we visited in the context of our recent audit on project selection, this was the case for the 2014-2020 period100. o The criteria for selecting projects should require beneficiaries to define at least one genuine result indicator corresponding to the programme objectives. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da se je za programe, ki jih je preučilo v okviru nedavne revizije izbire projektov, v obdobju 2014–2020 to upoštevalo,100 o merila za izbiro projektov bi morala vključevati zahtevo, da upravičenci opredelijo vsaj en resničen kazalnik rezultatov, ki ustreza ciljem programa.
In the same audit, we found that for the 2014-2020 period the criteria did not take sufficient account of results but mostly focused on outputs and spending101. 
Sodišče je v isti reviziji ugotovilo, da merila za obdobje 2014–2020 niso ustrezno upoštevala rezultatov, ampak so bila osredotočena predvsem na izložke in porabo,101 o projekte, prijavljene za financiranje, bi bilo treba oceniti in razvrstiti.
We found in the same audit that for the 2014-2020 period, projects were generally approved on a first-come first-served basis; as a result funding may not have been allocated to the best projects102. o The scope of the selected projects should be clearly justified by the needs and they should be most relevant to the programme objectives. 
Sodišče je v isti reviziji ugotovilo, da so bili projekti za obdobje 2014–2020 na splošno odobreni po načelu „kdor prej pride, prej melje“, zato sredstva morda niso bila dodeljena najboljšim projektom,102 30 8.
In many of our audits, we find problems with the scope of projects selected for funding. 
Sodišče v več revizijah ugotavlja probleme z obsegom projektov, izbranih za financiranje.
Sometimes this stems from weak intervention logic (needs analysis) at the programming phase (see GP No 3). 
Občasno izhajajo iz slabe intervencijske logike (analiza potreb) v fazi načrtovanja programov (glej vodilno načelo 3).
However even when the intervention logic is clear, poor selection procedures can lead to unsuitable projects receiving funding103. 67 The draft CPR for the period 2021-2027 proposes to give to the Commission additional powers in approving the selection criteria and introduces additional requirements for managing authorities concerning project selection. 
Tudi če je intervencijska logika jasna, pa lahko do tega, da sredstva prejmejo neustrezni projekti, privedejo slabi izbirni postopki.103 67 Osnutek uredbe o skupnih določbah za obdobje 2021–2027 vključuje predlog, da se Komisiji dodelijo dodatne pristojnosti za odobritev meril za izbiro, in uvaja dodatne zahteve za organe upravljanja glede izbire projektov.
This has the potential to increase the result orientation of project selection and cost-effectiveness of the selected projects104. 2. 
Zaradi tega bi se lahko povečali usmerjenost izbire projektov v rezultate in stroškovna učinkovitost izbranih projektov.104 2.
Performance indicators should be included in contract/grant agreements 68 Performance indicators with targets should be included in contract and/or grant agreements, so that it is possible to measure the extent to which programme objectives are met105. 69 At project level, for the three periods reviewed the legislation has not explicitly required the inclusion of performance indicators in grant agreements. 
Kazalnike smotrnosti bi bilo treba vključiti s pogodbe / sporazume o dodelitvi nepovratnih sredstev 68 Kazalnike smotrnosti s ciljnimi vrednostmi bi bilo treba vključiti v pogodbe in/ali sporazume o dodelitvi nepovratnih sredstev, da bi bilo mogoče izmeriti, v kolikšni meri so cilji programa izpolnjeni.105 69 Zakonodaja v zvezi s tremi pregledanimi obdobji na ravni projektov ni izrecno določala vključitve kazalnikov smotrnosti v sporazume o dodelitvi nepovratnih sredstev.
As a result, we found that it is difficult to monitor to what extent the ERDF projects for the 2014-2020 period contribute to the achievement of the programme objectives106. This problem also applies to the ESF, as many grant agreements do not include quantified result indicators107. 3. 
Posledično je Sodišče ugotovilo, da je težko spremljati, v kolikšni meri projekti ESRR za obdobje 2014–2020 prispevajo k uresničitvi ciljev programov.106 Ta problem se nanaša tudi na ESS, saj številni sporazumi o dodelitvi nepovratnih sredstev ne vključujejo količinsko opredeljenih kazalnikov rezultatov.107 3.
Project implementation should be cost-effective 70 The legislation for both 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 periods included a number of measures designed to ensure that the selected projects are implemented in a cost-effective way (optimal relationship between resources employed and results achieved): the requirement to perform cost-benefit analysis for major projects; a cap on funding for revenue-generating projects; and the need to apply public procurement procedures. 
Izvajanje projektov bi moralo biti stroškovno učinkovito 70 Zakonodaja za obdobji 2007–2013 in 2014–2020 je vključevala številne ukrepe, zasnovane za zagotovitev, da se izbrani projekti izvajajo stroškovno učinkovito (optimalno razmerje med uporabljenimi viri in doseženimi rezultati): zahtevo glede izvedbe analize stroškov in koristi za velike projekte, omejitev financiranja projektov, ki ustvarjajo prihodek, in zahtevo glede uporabe postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil.
While maintaining the requirement to apply public procurement law, the proposed legislative framework for 2021-2027 dispenses with the other requirements, which we consider presents a risk to sound financial management108. 31 
V predlaganem zakonodajnem okviru za obdobje 2021–2027 se je ohranila zahteva glede uporabe prava na področju javnega naročanja, odpravljene pa so bile druge zahteve, kar po mnenju Sodišča pomeni tveganje za dobro finančno poslovodenje108.
32 Special report on investments in Energy Efficiency We found that cost-effectiveness was not a determining factor when Member States allocated funding to energy efficiency measures and concrete projects109. 
32 Posebno poročilo o naložbah v energetsko učinkovitost Sodišče je ugotovilo, da stroškovna učinkovitost za države članice ni bila odločilni dejavnik pri dodeljevanju sredstev ukrepom za energetsko učinkovitost in konkretnim projektom.109 9.
9 Revisions of programmes are informed by performance considerations including results 2007-2013 2014-2020 2021-2027 72 Reprogramming of funds (transferring funds between programmes and between priorities, changing co-financing rates, or the public/private split of the national contribution) may take place during programme implementation, enabling Member States to realign their operations to take account of changed circumstances. 
2007– 2013 2014– 2020 2021– 2027 72 Med izvajanjem programov se lahko izvede reprogramiranje sredstev (prenos sredstev med programi in prioritetami, sprememba stopenj sofinanciranja ali delitev nacionalnega prispevka med javnim in zasebnim sektorjem), kar državam članicam omogoča ponovno uskladitev operacij tako, da upoštevajo spremenjene okoliščine.
Member States can reprogramme funding by a proposal to amend the relevant programmes, which must be approved by the Commission. 
Države članice lahko sredstva reprogramirajo s predlogom za spremembo ustreznih programov, ki ga mora odobriti Komisija.
73 The conditions for such revisions provided the Member States with considerable room for manoeuvre for the 2007-2013 period111. In this period, we found that amendments to programmes were not always driven by performance considerations but mainly to resolve difficulties in spending all the EU funds available. 74 The legislative framework was strengthened in 2014-2020 by introducing the need to justify the proposed changes to programmes and to assess their expected impact on achieving the Europe 2020 and programme objectives112, as well as through the introduction of rules regarding changes to performance reserve indicators113. 
74 Zakonodajni okvir je bil v obdobju 2014–2020 okrepljen z uvedbo zahteve glede utemeljitve predlaganih sprememb programov in ocene njihovega pričakovanega učinka na doseganje ciljev strategije Evropa 2020 in programov,112 pa tudi z uvedbo pravil o spremembah kazalnikov rezerve za smotrnost.113 Čeprav je treba spremembe programov še vedno utemeljiti in morajo države članice še vedno oceniti njihov pričakovani učinek na cilje programov, so v predlogih za obdobje 2021–2027 odpravljene omejitve glede kazalnikov.
For 2021-2027, the Commission has proposed a mandatory mid-term review exercise, amending all programmes in 2025 to set the allocations for the last 2 years. 
Komisija je za obdobje 2021–2027 predlagala obvezno izvedbo vmesnega pregleda, na podlagi katerega se bodo v letu 2025 vsi programi spremenili tako, da bodo določali dodelitve za zadnji dve leti.
We have noted, however, that there is a lack of clarity on how performance will be assessed114. Furthermore, the introduction of the scope to make a transfer of funds up to 5 % through a programme amendment without the Commission’s approval115 also increases the risk that changes will be made without any consideration of results116. 
Sodišče pa je ugotovilo, da ni dovolj jasno, kako bo smotrnost ocenjena.114 Poleg tega se z uvedbo možnosti, da se največ 5 % sredstev prenese s spremembo programa brez odobritve Komisije,115 tudi poveča tveganje, da bodo spremembe izvedene brez upoštevanja rezultatov.116
1. Revisions to programmes should include considerations of results 75 We found that revisions of programmes did not always include considerations of results. 
1. Pri revizijah programov bi bilo treba upoštevati rezultate 75 Sodišče je ugotovilo, da se pri revizijah programov niso vedno upoštevali rezultati.
2. Targets should not be revised without justification, but should reflect the level of funding 76 We consider that baselines and targets for performance indicators should be set at the right level from the outset118 and only be adapted in exceptional circumstances (external factors and changes in budget). 
2. Ciljne vrednosti se ne bi smele spreminjati brez utemeljitve, temveč bi morale odražati stopnjo financiranja 76 Sodišče meni, da bi bilo treba že na začetku določiti ustrezno raven izhodišč in ciljnih vrednosti za kazalnike smotrnosti118 ter jo prilagajati le v izjemnih okoliščinah (zunanji dejavniki in spremembe proračuna).
Unjustified and frequent revisions of targets undermine the performance orientation in Cohesion policy. 
Z neutemeljenimi in pogostimi spremembami ciljnih vrednosti se ogroža usmerjenost kohezijske politike v smotrnost.
77 We found several cases where frequent and unjustified revisions of targets took place. 
77 Sodišče je ugotovilo več primerov pogostih in neutemeljenih sprememb ciljnih vrednosti.
Failure to do so can impede the assessment of the effectiveness of a programme120. We have found that significant changes in funding were not consistently reflected in targets. 33 Special report on the Commission support for youth action teams For the 2007-2013 period, we found that the Commission’s assessment of the programme amendments proposed by Member States focused mainly on the budgetary aspects of the reprogramming exercise rather than on the best use of the ESF funds117. 
33 področju zaposlovanja mladih V zvezi z obdobjem 2007–2013 je Sodišče ugotovilo, da je bila ocena Komisije o spremembah programa, ki so jih predlagale države članice, osredotočena predvsem na proračunske vidike reprogramiranja in ne na najboljšo uporabo sredstev ESS.117 Posebno poročilo o podpori Komisije za skupine za ukrepanje na Posebno poročilo o podpori ESRR malim in srednje velikim podjetjem na področju e-trgovanja V zvezi z obdobjem 2007–2013 je Sodišče poročalo, da je bila smiselnost merjenja doseženega napredka včasih ogrožena, saj so se kazalniki in ciljne vrednosti spremenili (pogosto proti koncu programskega obdobja), kar ni bilo vedno dobro utemeljeno.119 78 Če so bistvene spremembe financiranja utemeljene, bi bilo treba programske cilje spremeniti.
Special report on EU education objectives in Cohesion We found that for two programmes in Italy, the financial allocations to education were reduced by 8 % and 10 % of the initial budget respectively, without either modifying the indicators and their target values or providing an adequate justification121. 
Posebno poročilo o ciljih EU za področje izobraževanja v okviru kohezijske politike Sodišče je pri dveh programih v Italiji ugotovilo, da so bila dodeljena sredstva zmanjšana za 8 % oziroma 10 % prvotnega proračuna, ne da bi bili spremenjeni kazalniki in njihove ciljne vrednosti in ne da bi bila ta odločitev ustrezno utemeljena.121
4 – Principles governing monitoring and reporting 79 Both the Commission and Member States have responsibilities for monitoring programmes. 
4 – Načela v zvezi s spremljanjem in poročanjem 79 Tako Komisija kot države članice imajo pristojnosti za spremljanje programov.
At the Member State level, managing authorities monitor the implementation of programmes, aggregate monitoring information and, from 2014-2020, confirm the reliability of the performance data to the Commission. 
Organi upravljanja na ravni držav članic spremljajo izvajanje programov, združujejo informacije o spremljanju in od obdobja 2014–2020 Komisiji potrjujejo zanesljivost podatkov o uspešnosti poslovanja.
Reporting is closely connected to monitoring and is one of the main elements designed to ensure accountability. 
Poročanje je tesno povezano s spremljanjem in je eden glavnih elementov, zasnovanih za zagotavljanje odgovornosti.
Member States submit reports to the Commission throughout the programme periods, which are then used by the Commission as a basis for published strategic reports (e.g. annual summary report, annual activity reports). 
Države članice pošiljajo poročila Komisiji v celotnem programskem obdobju, Komisija pa jih nato uporabi kot podlago za objavljena strateška poročila (npr. letno zbirno poročilo, letna poročila o dejavnostih).
For this stage there are three principles, relating to timely performance data, accountability and the use of performance information. 
Pri tej fazi se uporabljajo tri načela, ki so povezana s pravočasnimi podatki o smotrnosti poslovanja, odgovornostjo in uporabo informacij o smotrnosti poslovanja.