natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Observations 20 Effective coordination of funds was often affected by weak demarcation lines and insufficient mechanisms to ensure complementarity The demarcation criteria set by Member States allowed overlapping of public funds for certain types of projects 31 As regards demarcation between the different EU funds, the audit showed that, although the Member States’ national strategy plans and RDPs for 2007-2013 generally set out clear demarcation criteria, these were not always consistent with criteria from other programming documents and overlaps of funds were explicitly allowed in some cases: — In Germany (Saxony), according to the RDP, the demarcation between the EAFRD and ERDF funds for school modernisation projects was based on the number of pupils: the EAFRD only financed schools of less than 350 pupils. 
72 % infrastrukturnih projektov v zvezi s kanalizacijo, ki so bili odobreni v okviru operativnega programa ESRR, so izvedli isti upravičenci, ki so za isto vrsto projektov uporabljali sredstva EKSRP. in nezadostni mehanizmi za zagotavljanje dopolnjevanja Razmejitvena merila držav članic so dopuščala prekrivanje javnih sredstev pri nekaterih vrstah projektov 31 V zvezi z razmejitvijo med različnimi skladi EU je revizija pokazala, da so države članice v nacionalnih strateških načrtih in programih razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2007–2013 v splošnem sicer določile jasna razmejitvena merila, vendar pa se ta niso vedno skladala z merili iz drugih programskih dokumentov, v nekaterih primerih pa je bilo prekrivanje skladov izrecno dovoljeno: – v Nemčiji (Saška) je v skladu z načrtom razvoja podeželja razmejitev med sredstvi EKSRP in ESRR za projekte posodobitve šol temeljila na številu učencev: iz EKSRP so se financirale samo šole z manj kot 350 učenci.
However, the ERDF operational programme does not set a pupil threshold for eligible projects. — In Italy (Sicily), while the RDP stated that the ERDF could only fund infrastructure projects in villages with more than 500 inhabitants, the ERDF operational programme itself did not mention this demarcation criterion. 
Vendar pa v operativnem programu ESRR za upravičene projekte ni določena meja v zvezi s številom učencev; – v Italiji (Sicilija) je bilo v programu razvoja podeželja navedeno, da lahko ESRR financira le infrastrukturne projekte v vaseh, ki imajo več kot 500 prebivalcev, v samem operativnem programu ESRR pa to razmejitveno merilo ni bilo omenjeno.
When visiting one of the audited projects, the auditors found that an ERDF-funded project had been carried out in a village of less than 500 inhabitants. — In Poland, both the EAFRD and the ERDF allowed for the financing of infrastructure projects in rural areas. 
Med obiskom enega od revidiranih projektov je Sodišče ugotovilo, da je bil projekt, financiran iz ESRR, izveden v vasi z manj kot 500 prebivalci; 32 Prav tako ni bilo razmejitve med skladi EU za razvoj podeželja in skladi držav članic za podeželsko infrastrukturo.
There was no critical assessment of the arguments in favour of having several funds acting independently to provide support for similar projects, despite the fact that this led to a duplication of management structures and required a greater effort to ensure coordination between funds and avoid double funding. 
Ni bilo kritične ocene argumentov, ki so zagovarjali neodvisno zagotavljanje podpore podobnim projektom iz več skladov, kljub temu da je zaradi tega prišlo do podvajanja upravljavskih struktur, potrebnega pa je bilo tudi več napora za zagotavljanje usklajenosti med skladi ter preprečevanje dvojnega financiranja.
Observations 21 Complementary actions were not actively promoted 33 Four out of the five audited Member States set up coordination bodies to supervise the spending of EU funds and in two Member States representatives of the managing authorities of other EU funds participated in the rural development monitoring committees. 
Opažanja 21 Dopolnilni ukrepi se niso aktivno spodbujali 33 V štirih od petih revidiranih držav članic so bila vzpostavljena usklajevalna telesa za nadzor nad porabo sredstev iz skladov EU, v dveh državah članicah pa so predstavniki organov upravljanja drugih skladov EU sodelovali v odborih za spremljanje razvoja podeželja.
However, no evidence was available to show how this helped ensure better complementarity between funds, i.e. by filling funding gaps and operating in synergy in order to achieve common objectives. 
Vendar pa ni bilo na voljo nobenih dokazov, ki bi pokazali, kako je to pripomoglo k boljšemu dopolnjevanju med skladi, tj. z zapolnitvijo vrzeli v financiranju in sinergijskim delovanjem za doseganje skupnih ciljev.
Although the term ‘comple-mentarity’ was mentioned in Member States’ RDPs and during high-level meetings, it was often misused to refer to demarcation and the rules aimed at avoiding double funding. 
Čeprav se je izraz „dopolnjevanje” omenjal v programih razvoja podeželja držav članic in med srečanji na visoki ravni, pa je bil pogosto uporabljen napačno, kot da se nanaša na razmejevanje in pravila za preprečevanje dvojnega financiranja.
34 Complementarity could have been encouraged by, for example, using different funds to prioritise successive projects that build upon each other or parallel projects that complement each other in order to achieve additional benefits. 
34 Dopolnjevanje bi se lahko spodbujalo na primer tako, da bi se z uporabo sredstev iz različnih skladov prednost namenila zaporednim projektom, ki se nadgrajujejo, ali vzporednim projektom, ki se medsebojno dopolnjujejo, s tem pa bi se dosegle dodatne koristi.
The audit only identified one mechanism aimed at promoting complementarity in the Member States audited: in Romania, selection criteria used under measure 322 prioritised sewerage infrastructure projects that complemented projects supported under the Cohesion Fund with the aim to achieve the objectives of the waste water directive. 
Pri reviziji je bil v revidiranih državah članicah odkrit le en mehanizem za spodbujanje dopolnjevanja: v Romuniji so bila izbirna merila za ukrep 322 oblikovana tako, da so dajala prednost infrastrukturnim projektom v zvezi s kanalizacijo, ki so dopolnjevali projekte za doseganje ciljev iz direktive o odpadnih vodah, za katere se podpora zagotavlja v okviru Kohezijskega sklada.
35 The common approach taken by Member States was to leave it up to the potential beneficiaries to coordinate their use of the different funds (see Box 5). 
35 V splošnem so države članice usklajevanje uporabe sredstev iz različnih skladov prepuščale potencialnim upravičencem (glej okvir 5).
An example of the alternate use of funds based on availability Germany (Saxony) A commune in Germany (Saxony) used several funds (national, own funds and RDP funds) to support the consecutive stages of a school renovation project from 2009 to 2011. 
Primer izmenične uporabe sredstev glede na razpoložljivost Nemčija (Saška) Občina v Nemčiji (Saška) je uporabila različna sredstva (nacionalna in lastna sredstva ter sredstva v okviru programa razvoja podeželja) za pomoč pri zaporednih fazah projekta obnove šole od leta 2009 do 2011.
The RDP funds were used for the same type of investment as the national funds, e.g. the replacement of school windows. 
Sredstva v okviru programa razvoja podeželja so se uporabljala za isto vrsto naložbe kot nacionalna sredstva, npr. za zamenjavo oken v šoli.
This does not represent complementarity, but rather the practice of switching between different funds, depending on their availability. 
Pri tem ne gre za dopolnjevanje, temveč za prakso prehajanja med različnimi skladi glede na njihovo razpoložljivost.
Observations 22 36 The audit identified two cases where the lack of complementarity with national and local funds jeopardised the efficiency and effectiveness of the EAFRD projects (see Box 6). 
Opažanja 22 36 Sodišče je med revizijo odkrilo dva primera, pri katerih je pomanjkanje dopolnjevanja z nacionalnimi in lokalnimi sredstvi ogrožalo učinkovitost in uspešnost projektov EKSRP (glej okvir 6).
Examples of a lack of complementarity between funds Romania In a commune that had received RDP support for building a network of roads, the main road leading to these financed roads was in very poor condition. 
Primeri pomanjkanja dopolnjevanja med sredstvi Romunija V občini, ki je prejela podporo za gradnjo cestnega omrežja v okviru programa razvoja podeželja, je bila glavna cesta, ki vodi do teh financiranih cest, v zelo slabem stanju.
The main road was supposed to be upgraded with local funds, but never received the approved funding. 
Posodobili naj bi jo z lokalnimi sredstvi, vendar odobrenih sredstev niso nikoli prejeli.
Source: www.geoportal.gov.ro Source: European Court of Auditors. 
Vir: www.geoportal.gov.ro Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče.
Italy (Sicily) One of the audited projects involved building a new road as an alternative to an existing communal road that had become unusable through lack of maintenance. 
Italija (Sicilija) Eden od revidiranih projektov se je nanašal na izgradnjo nove ceste, ki naj bi nadomestila obstoječo občinsko cesto, ki je zaradi pomanjkanja vzdrževanja postala neuporabna.
The road had fallen into disrepair because communal roads were not eligible for RDP support and the region’s own budget for road maintenance had been cancelled (see Box 2). 
Cesta je bila v slabem stanju, ker občinske ceste niso bile upravičene do podpore v okviru programa razvoja podeželja, regijska proračunska sredstva za vzdrževanje cest pa so bila preklicana (glej okvir 2).
Building a new road rather than regularly maintaining an existing one is clearly inefficient13 and reveals a gap between the funds, which do not complement each other. 
Gradnja nove ceste namesto rednega vzdrževanja obstoječe je očitno neučinkovita13 in kaže na vrzel med sredstvi, ki se med seboj ne dopolnjujejo.
13 Recent studies and reports on this topic include the following: Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense, ‘Repair priorities: transportation spending strategies to save taxpayer dollars and improve roads’, 2011; McKinsey Global Institute, ‘Infrastructure productivity: how to save $1 trillion a year’, 2013; European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union, ‘EU road surfaces: economic and safety impact of the lack of regular road maintenance’, 2014. 
13 Najnovejše študije in poročila o tej temi zajemajo: Smart Growth America in Taxpayers for Common Sense, Repair Priorities: Transportation spending strategies to save taxpayer dollars and improve roads, 2011; McKinsey Global Institute, Infrastructure productivity: how to save $1 trillion a year, 2013; Evropski parlament, Generalni direktorat za notranjo politiko Unije, EU Road Surfaces: Economic and Safety Impact of the Lack of Regular Road Maintenance, 2014. ceste, financirane v okviru ukrepa 322 cestni odsek z odobrenim financiranjem iz nacionalnih sredstev Okvir 6
Observations 23 The Commission focused on improving coordination in the 2014-2020 programming period in order to address the weaknesses of the past 37 Responsibility for justifying the need for RDP intervention and ensuring good coordination between funds lies mainly with the Member States. 
Opažanja 23 Komisija se je v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 osredotočala na izboljšanje usklajevanja, da bi odpravila pretekle slabosti 37 Za utemeljitev potrebe po posredovanju v okviru programa razvoja podeželja in zagotavljanje dobrega usklajevanja med sredstvi so odgovorne predvsem države članice.
However, the Commission has the power to influence these processes at the programme approval stage, when it reviews the needs analysis and the demarcation and complementarity principles set out by the Member States. 
Komisija pa lahko na te postopke vpliva v fazi odobritve programov, ko pregleduje analizo potreb ter načela razmejitve in dopolnjevanja, ki jih določijo države članice.
The Commission can also intervene indirectly during the implementation of the programmes, by issuing guidance, promoting good practice and participating in monitoring committee meetings, where it has an advisory role14. 
Komisija lahko posreduje tudi posredno med izvajanjem programov, tako da objavi navodila, spodbuja dobre prakse in sodeluje na sestankih nadzornega odbora, kjer ima svetovalno vlogo14.
38 In the 2007-2013 programming period, the Commission approved the RDPs submitted by the Member States, even though they lacked a clear justification and quantification of the need for using the EAFRD for infrastructure investments. 
38 V programskem obdobju 2007–2013 je Komisija odobrila programe razvoja podeželja, ki so jih predložile države članice, čeprav ti niso vsebovali jasne utemeljitve in količinske opredelitve potrebe po črpanju sredstev EKSRP za infrastrukturne naložbe.
The Commission generally insisted that the audited measures had to be better targeted, that demarcation criteria be set, that cross-checks be performed to avoid double funding and that coordination bodies be set up. 
Komisija je na splošno vztrajala, da morajo biti revidirani ukrepi bolje ciljno usmerjeni, da je treba opredeliti razmejitvena merila, izvajati navzkrižne preglede zaradi preprečevanja dvojnega financiranja in ustanoviti usklajevalna telesa.
However, it accepted overlaps of funds for the same types of intervention (see paragraphs 31 and 32) and issued no guidance to Member States on how to achieve better complementarity. 
Vendar je kljub temu sprejela prekrivanje sredstev za iste vrste posredovanj (glej odstavka 31 in 32), državam članicam pa ni dala navodil o tem, kako doseči boljše dopolnjevanje.
39 In the 2014-2020 programming period, improving coordination and ensuring consistent implementation of the various funds were among the main goals behind drafting a single set of rules covering the EU’s five Structural and Investment Funds. 
39 V programskem obdobju 2014 – 2020 naj bi z oblikovanjem enotnega sklopa pravil za pet strukturnih in investicijskih skladov EU izboljšali usklajevanje ter zagotovili dosledno uporabo sredstev iz različnih skladov.
These rules highlight the importance of greater consistency between the EU funds. The new approach focuses less on demarcation and more on complementarity. 
Ta pravila poudarjajo pomen večje usklajenosti med skladi EU, nov pristop pa se bolj posveča dopolnjevanju kot razmeje-vanju.
A positive element for rural infrastructure is the fact that the measure ‘basic services and village renewal’ can now also offer support to the development plans for municipalities and villages, thus encouraging them to carry out investments in a coherent way. 
Na področju podeželske infrastrukture je pozitivno to, da se lahko zdaj v okviru ukrepa „osnovne storitve in obnova vasi” podpirajo tudi razvojni načrti občin in vasi, ki se jih na ta način spodbuja, da naložbe izvajajo usklajeno.
40 The Court reviewed the checklist used by the Commission to ensure the consistency of the 2014-2020 RDPs. 
40 Sodišče je pregledalo kontrolni seznam Komisije, s katerim je zagotavljala usklajenost sredstev v programih razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2014–2020.
The checklist included points that refer to the complementarity of the EU’s Structural and Investment Funds in the areas of local roads, irrigation and water treatment; however, it did not include any checks on the risk of substitution of funds. 
Kontrolni seznam je zajemal točke, ki so se nanašale na dopolnjevanje strukturnih in investicijskih skladov EU na področjih lokalnih cest, namakanja in čiščenja voda, vendar ni vseboval pregledov v zvezi s tveganjem za zamenjavo sredstev.
14 Article 77(2) and Article 78 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 state that ‘At their own initiative, Commission representatives may participate in the work of the Monitoring Committee in an advisory capacity’, and that ‘The Monitoring Committee shall satisfy itself as to the effectiveness of the implementation of the rural development programme’. 
14 V členu 77(2) in členu 78 Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005 je navedeno, da lahko „[p] redstavniki Komisije [...] na lastno pobudo sodelujejo pri delu nadzornega odbora kot svetovalci” in da se mora „[n]adzorni odbor [...] prepričati o uspešnosti izvajanja programa razvoja podeželja”.
This is done by considering and revising selection criteria, monitoring progress toward objectives, the achievement of targets, etc. 
To storijo s preučevanjem in spreminjanjem izbirnih meril, s spremljanjem napredka pri doseganju ciljev in doseganja ciljnih vrednosti itd.
Observations 24 41 As highlighted in the Court’s 2014 annual report15, partnership agreements, as the key mechanism for coordinating EU funds, have provided little evidence that the aims of complementarity and synergy are being put into practice by Member States. 
Opažanja 24 41 Kot je bilo poudarjeno v letnem poročilu Sodišča za leto 201415, sporazumi o partnerstvu kot ključni mehanizem za usklajevanje sredstev EU niso prinesli veliko dokazov, da države članice v praksi izvajajo cilje dopolnjevanja in sinergije.
Furthermore, despite the Commission’s checks, the 2014-2020 RDPs for Germany (Saxony), Poland and Romania16 still do not provide a description of the mechanisms to be used to promote complementarity and synergies between the different sources of funding. 
Še več, v programih razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2014–2020 v Nemčiji (Saška), na Poljskem in v Ro-muniji16 kljub pregledom Komisije še zmeraj manjkajo opisi mehanizmov, ki bi se uporabili za spodbujanje dopolnjevanja in sinergij med različnimi viri financiranja.
The focus of the programmes remains on demarcation and avoiding double funding. 
Programi so še zmeraj osredotočeni na razmejevanje in izogibanje dvojnemu financiranju.
Part II — Limited value for money in the implementation of the measures audited 42 In order to achieve value for money17, Member States should: — apply selection methods that prioritise the most cost-effective projects, i.e. the projects with the potential to make the greatest contribution towards the RDP objectives per unit of cost; — ensure that costs are reasonable before approving grant applications and payment claims; — ensure, before approving grant applications, that applicants have been able to show that their projects are likely to be sustainable; — ensure that the administrative procedures allow projects to be implemented within a reasonable time frame. 
Del II – Slaba stroškovna učinkovitost pri izvajanju revidiranih ukrepov 42 Za doseganje stroškovne učinkovito-sti17 morajo države članice: – uporabljati izbirne metode, ki dajejo prednost stroškovno najučinkovitejšim projektom, tj. projektom, ki bi lahko na enoto stroškov največ prispevali k ciljem iz programov razvoja podeželja, – pred odobritvijo vlog za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev in zahtevkov za plačila zagotoviti, da so stroški razumni, – pred odobritvijo vlog za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev zagotoviti, da so vlagatelji dokazali, da bodo njihovi projekti po vsej verjetnosti trajnostni, – zagotoviti, da so upravni postopki takšni, da omogočajo izvedbo projektov v razumnem časovnem okviru.
The Commission, through its guidance and audit activities, should ensure that Member States observe the principles of sound financial management (economy, efficiency and effectiveness). 
Komisija mora s svojimi navodili in revizijskimi dejavnostmi zagotoviti, da države članice spoštujejo načela dobrega finančnega poslovodenja (gospodarnost, učinkovitost in uspešnost).
Selection procedures did not always direct funding towards the most cost-effective projects 43 To ensure that funding is directed towards the RDP objectives, Member States must set out the conditions for eligibility — which identify, for example, the types of investments supported, the categories of beneficiaries that can apply for a grant and the nature of the support. 
Izbirni postopki niso vedno omogočali usmerjanja financiranja v stroškovno najučinkovitejše projekte 43 Da bi zagotovile usmerjanje financiranja v cilje programov razvoja podeželja, morajo države članice določiti pogoje za upravičenost, ki opredeljujejo na primer vrste naložb, ki se podpirajo, kategorije upravičencev, ki lahko zaprosijo za nepovratna sredstva, in vrsto podpore.
The Court found that the eligibility criteria set by the audited Member States were generally clear and objective. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so bili pogoji za upravičenost, ki so jih določile revidirane države članice, v splošnem jasni in objektivni.
However, a specific case was identified in Italy (Sicily) where an eligibility criterion applicable to rural road projects supported under measure 125 was not in line with the needs described in the RDP (see Box 7). 
Vendar je bil v Italiji (Sicilija) odkrit poseben primer, kjer merilo za upravičenost v zvezi s projekti podeželskih cest, ki se podpirajo v okviru ukrepa 125, ni bilo v skladu s potrebami, opisanimi v programu razvoja podeželja (glej okvir 7).
15 The findings presented in the annual report are based on a sample of five partnership agreements: those of Germany, France, Latvia, Poland and Portugal. 
15 Ugotovitve, predstavljene v letnem poročilu, temeljijo na vzorcu petih sporazumov o partnerstvu: Nemčije, Francije, Latvije, Poljske in Portugalske.
16 The 2014-2020 RDPs for the remaining two regions audited (Spain (Extremadura) and Italy (Sicily)) have not been reviewed because they had not yet been approved by the date of the audit. 
16 Programa razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2014–2020 za preostali revidirani regiji (Španija (Ekstremadura) in Italija (Sicilija)) nista bila pregledana, ker do datuma revizije še nista bila odobrena.
17 In accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness set out in Article 30(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. 
17 V skladu z načeli gospodarnosti, učinkovitosti in uspešnosti, opredeljenimi v členu 30(2) Uredbe (EU, Euratom) št. 966/2012.
Observations 25 An eligibility criterion inconsistent with the RDP objectives and needs of rural areas Italy (Sicily) Although the RDP indicates that projects supported under measure 125 should favour the rehabilitation of existing farm roads, the eligibility criteria set in the call for proposals required that a maximum of 40 % of the eligible project costs was spent on rehabilitation, while the remaining 60 % had to be spent on building new roads. 
Opažanja 25 Merilo za upravičenost, ki ni bilo skladno s cilji programa razvoja podeželja in potrebami podeželskih območij Italija (Sicilija) Čeprav je v programu razvoja podeželja navedeno, da morajo projekti, ki se podpirajo v okviru ukrepa 125, namenjati prednost obnovi obstoječih kmetijskih cest, je bilo v skladu z merili upravičenosti, določenimi v razpisu za zbiranje predlogov, zahtevano, da se lahko za obnovo porabi največ 40 % upravičenih stroškov projekta, preostalih 60 % pa je bilo treba porabiti za gradnjo novih cest.
This requirement resulted in the financing of some projects which did not match the needs of the rural areas as identified in the RDP. 
Zaradi te zahteve so bili financirani nekateri projekti, ki niso ustrezali potrebam podeželskih območij, kot so bile opredeljene v programu razvoja podeželja.
For example, in one of the audited projects, the initial section of the existing access road was in bad condition and would have warranted rehabilitation, yet it was not included in the project to keep the costs for rehabilitation under 40 % of the eligible project costs. 
Pri enem od revidiranih projektov, na primer, je bil začetni del obstoječe dovozne ceste v slabem stanju in bi ga bilo treba obnoviti. Kljub temu pa v projekt ni bil vključen, da stroški za obnovo ne bi presegli meje 40 % upravičenih stroškov projekta.
On the other hand, around one third of the length of the newly built road served only two out of the 31 farms included in the association which implemented the project, i.e. only 5.5 % of the total agricultural land owned by the association. 
Po drugi strani pa približno tretjina dolžine na novo izgrajene ceste služi samo dvema od 31 kmetij v združenju, ki je izvedlo projekt, tj. samo 5,5 % vseh kmetijskih zemljišč v lasti združenja.