natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
poziva Komisijo, da navede - kar najbolj podrobno - za katera področja proračuna meni, da so področja HR (visokega tveganja), MR (srednjega tveganja) in LR (nizkega tveganja), ter temu primerno prilagodi nadzor in revizijske dejavnosti;
Invites the Commission to indicate - in as much detail as possible - which areas of the budget it considers HR (High Risk), MR (Medium Risk) and LR (Low Risk) and to adapt its control and audit activities accordingly;
poziva Računsko sodišče, da pri oblikovanju revizijskega mnenja upošteva sprejetje tveganja, ki so ga določili proračunski in politični organi;
Invites the Court of Auditors to take into consideration, when establishing its audit opinion, the risk acceptance decided by the budgetary and political authorities;
opozarja, da je predsednik Računskega sodišča v govoru, namenjenemu njegovemu pristojnemu odboru, v Strasbourgu dne 14. novembra 2005 povedal, da je Sodišče "v postopku priprave notranje presoje organizacije in metod za medsebojni pregled"; ugotavlja, da od ustanovitve Sodišča leta 1977 njegovo delo ni bilo predmet neodvisne revizije; pozdravlja pobudo in razume, da bo medsebojni pregled zunanja revizija, kot se zdaj izvaja v nekaterih državah članicah, ter da je cilj preskusiti kakovost in pomembnost dela Sodišča ter jasno pokazati področja, na katerih se lahko Sodišče uči od drugih, vključno z državami članicami in drugimi državami, kot so Združene države in Nova Zelandija;
Recalls that the President of the Court of Auditors, in his speech to its competent committee in Strasbourg on 14 November 2005, said that the Court was "in the process of preparing a self-assessment of its organisation and methods to be followed by a peer review"; notes that no independent review of the Court's work has taken place since it was set up in 1977; welcomes the initiative and understands that the peer review will be an external review, as currently exercised in some Member States, and that the objective is to test the quality and relevance of what the Court is doing and clearly to indicate where the Court could learn from others, including both Member States and other states such as the United States and New Zealand;
poziva, da ta pregled preuči vprašanje, ali so sredstva Sodišča zadostna za dosego njegovih ciljev;
Calls for this review to give consideration to the question of whether the resources of the Court are sufficient to achieve its objectives;
poziva Sodišče - znotraj priprave medsebojnega pregleda - da svojemu pristojnemu odboru pošlje poročilo, v katerem Sodišče - kritično in strokovno - opiše svoje močne in šibke strani ter ali organizacija uprave Sodišča dopušča izpolnjevanje sedanjih standardov v zvezi z učinkovitostjo, lastništvom in vodstvom; nadalje poziva Sodišče, da svoj pristojni odbor in glavno stranko obvešča glede vseh pomembnejših korakov v tem procesu ter odboru predloži končno in vmesna poročila;
Invites the Court, as part of the preparation of the peer review, to send its competent committee a report in which the Court critically and professionally describes its strengths and weaknesses and whether its governance set-up allows it to meet present standards regarding efficiency, effectiveness, ownership and leadership; further invites the Court to keep its competent committee and main client informed on all major steps in this process and to present the final as well as intermediary reports to this committee;
poziva, da Sodišče v tem poročilu resno in natančno preuči uvedbo okrepljenih tehnologij v program dela za merjenje in ocenjevanje napredka pri vzpostavljanju učinkovitih finančnih nadzorov;
Calls for the Court to give serious and detailed consideration in this report to introducing into its work programme enhanced techniques for measuring and assessing progress in establishing effective financial controls;
pozdravlja prizadevanja Sodišča za izboljšanje predstavitve rezultatov revizije, zlasti uporabo tabel in kazalnikov, kot je ocena vodenja in nadzornih sistemov v državah članicah glede na strukturne ukrepe (Priloga 2 k Poglavju 4 in Priloga 1 k Poglavju 5 letnega poročila); upa, da se bo uporaba teh tabel in kazalnikov v prihodnjih poročilih razširila;
Welcomes the Court's efforts to improve the presentation of its audit results and in particular the use of tables and indicators such as the assessment of the implementation in the Member States of management and control systems as regards structural measures (Annex 2 to Chapter 4 and Annex 1 to Chapter 5 in the annual report); expresses its hope that the use of such tables and indicators be expanded in future reports;
ugotavlja, da je lahko primerjalna analiza učinkovito orodje pri ocenjevanju prizadevanj držav članic za izboljšanje upravljanja sredstev EU; zato zahteva, da infomacije o prednostnih in pomanjkljivostih kontrolnih sistemov držav članic objavita tako Komisija kakor tudi Evropsko računsko sodišče;
Finds that benchmarking can be an effective tool in evaluating efforts by Member States to improve management of EU funds; demands therefore that information about the strengths and weaknesses of the Member States' control systems be made public both by the Commission and the Court;
obžaluje, da tabela 1 k Poglavju 5 vključuje le omejeno število držav članic, in poziva Sodišče, da poišče načine in sredstva za vključitev bolj eksplicitnih in specifičnih informacij o slabostih v različnih sektorjih držav članic;
Regrets that the table in Annex 1 to Chapter 5 includes only a limited number of Member States and invites the Court to find ways to include more explicit and specific information on weaknesses in the different sectors and Member States;
opozarja, da je v poročilu o razrešnici za leto 2003 Parlament že zahteval nadaljnji razvoj metodologije DAS, da bi pridobili informacije o vsakoletnih izboljšavah v vsakem sektorju v različnih državah članicah;
Recalls that in its discharge report for 2003 the Parliament already asked for the DAS methodology to be further developed in order to obtain information on improvements in each sector from year to year in the different Member States;
opozarja Sodišče, da lahko znatno poveča svoje operativne službe, če zmanjša število kabinetov članic na eno osebo;
Reminds the Court that its operational services could be significantly increased by reducing Members' cabinets to one person;
ugotavlja, da so prispevki, izračunani na podlagi bruto nacionalnega dohodka (BND), zdaj najpomembnejši vir dohodka za Skupnost (2/3 vseh dohodkov v letu 2004), in je zaskrbljen, da Sodišče poroča o velikih razlikah v nadzornih in kontrolnih sistemih statističnih uradov v državah članicah (odstavek 3.48), ker bi to lahko vplivalo na kakovost podatkov, ki se uporabljajo za izračun prispevkov držav članic;
Notes that contributions calculated on the basis of gross national income (GNI) are now by far the most important source of revenue for the Community (two thirds of all revenue in 2004) and is concerned that the Court reports significant differences in the supervisory and control systems at statistical offices in Member States (paragraph 3.48) because this could impact on the quality of the data being used for calculating Member States' contributions;
poziva Komisijo, da svoj pristojni odbor obvesti o tem, katere ukrepe je ali bo sprejela za izboljšanje zanesljivosti, primerljivosti in izčrpnosti nacionalnih računov;
Invites the Commission to inform its competent committee on which measures it has or will take to improve the reliability, comparability and exhaustiveness of national accounts;
z zadovoljstvom ugotavlja, da Sodišče prvič podaja pozitivno izjavo o odhodkih v okviru integriranega administrativnega in kontrolnega sistema (IAKS) ter da ta sistem, če se učinkovito izvaja, obravnava kot močen instrument pri zmanjševanju tveganja nepravilnih izdatkov;
Notes with satisfaction that the Court for the first time has issued a positive statement on expenditure under the Integrated Administrative and Control System (IACS) and that it considers this system, when effectively implemented, to be a strong instrument in reducing risk of irregular expenditure;
prav tako ugotavlja, da se sistem v Grčiji še vedno ne izvaja v celoti, kar bi moralo veljati od leta 1993, ter da je Sodišče prav tako prvič navedlo razlog, in sicer da "kmečka združenja nadzorujejo vnos vseh podatkov v računalniški sistem"; prav tako opozarja, da "znaša ocenjen finančni učinek teh nepravilnih sprememb najmanj 10 000 000 EUR in da bi bil učinek v celotnem obdobju za vložitev zahtevkov lahko še precej večji" (odstavek 4.8); ugotavlja, da vlada Grčije zavrača tovrstne zahtevke in se od novembra leta 2005 s Komisijo pogaja o rešitvi tega spora; meni, da bi morala vnos podatkov nadzorovati grška vlada in ne kmečka združenja;
Also notes that the system is still not fully implemented in Greece, as it should have been since 1993, and that the Court, also for the first time, has indicated the reason, namely that "farmers unions control the input of all data into the computer"; further notes that "these irregular changes have an estimated financial impact of at least 10 million euros, and that the impact over the whole claim period could be significantly more" (paragraph 4.8); notes that the government of Greece has refuted these claims and in November 2005 opened negotiations with the Commission in order to settle the issue; feels that the government of Greece should control the data input and not the farmers unions;
ugotavlja, da v okviru sedanjega sistema popravke pogosto plačajo davkoplačevalci in ne končni upravičenec, ki je naredil napako; meni, da imajo zato popravki le omejen preventiven in odvračilen učinek na upravičence in upravitelje;
Notes that under the current system corrections are too often paid by taxpayers and not by the final beneficiary who committed the error; takes the view that corrections therefore only have a limited preventive and dissuasive effect on beneficiaries and managers;
ugotavlja nezadovoljstvo Sodišča z obsegom dela certifikacijskih organov (odstavek 4.60), ker ne predvideva neposrednega zagotovila, da so informacije, ki so jih navedli prosilci in uporabljale plačilne agencije za izračun zapadlih plačil, pravilne in so zato ta plačila zakonita in pravilna; poziva Komisijo, da od certifikacijskih organov izrecno zahteva preskus delovanja nadzorov na primarni ravni;
Notes the Court's discontent with the scope of the work of the certifying bodies (paragraph 4.60) on the grounds that it does not provide direct assurance that the information supplied by claimants, and used by paying agencies to calculate the payment due, is correct and therefore that payments are legal and regular; invites the Commission explicitly to require certifying bodies to test the operation of the primary-level controls;
v celoti podpira mnenje Sodišča, da so naknadna preverjanja plačil Komisije, ki vključujejo obisk le v treh državah članicah, preveč omejena, da bi Komisija lahko izjavila, da ima "v zvezi z zakonodajo Skupnosti zadostno zagotovilo odhodkov" (odstavek 4.58);
Fully supports the Court's point of view that the Commission's post-payment checks involving visits to only three Member States is too limited to enable the Commission to state that it has "reasonable assurance as to the compliance with Community legislation of the expenditure" (paragraph 4.58);
Posebno poročilo št. 9/2004 o gozdarskih ukrepih v okviru politike razvoja podeželja
Special Report No 9/2004 concerning Forestry Measures within Rural Development Policy
soglaša s kritiko Sodišča, da ne obstaja nobena skupno uporabljena opredelitev gozda ali drugih gozdnih površin v EU, čeprav so ZN že pred desetimi leti določili splošne opredelitve gozda in gozdnih površin; močno priporoča, da Komisija uvede minimalno skupno terminologijo; npr. opredelitev pojmov v skladu z različnimi podnebnimi območji v Uniji; zahteva, daKomisija uporabi skupne opredelitve, da bi bolje načrtovala gozdarske ukrepe in izdatke EU;
Shares the Court's criticism that there is no commonly applied definition of forest and other wooded land in the EU although the UN already established general definitions of forest and wooded land 10 years ago; strongly recommends that the Commission introduce a minimum of common terminology, such as a set of definitions according to the different climate zones in the Union; requests that the Commission use these common definitions in order better to target EU forestry measures and spending;
meni, da je nesprejemljivo, da je akreditacija plačilnih agencij EKUJS v nekaterih novih državah članicah od pristopa pomanjkljiva; poziva Komisijo, da čim prej konča delo, ker bodo EKUJS v prihodnjih letih zaračunane precejšnje vsote in bo nadaljnje podaljšanje tem državam članicam nedvomno povzročilo pozna plačila ali zamude pri plačilih;
Finds it unacceptable that the accreditation of the EAGGF paying agencies in some new Member States has been incomplete since accession; calls on the Commission to complete its work as soon as possible, as significant amounts will be charged to the EAGGF in the coming years and further prolongation will definitely cause late or delayed payments for these Member States;
opaža pomanjkanje usklajenosti med sedemletnim programskim obdobjem od leta 2000 do 2006 za ukrepe za pogozdovanje in sredstva, dodeljena do tega obdobja, na eni strani, ter glavnim instrumentom za pogozdovanje, ki zajema letno premijo na hektar za upravičence, plačano v 20 letih za nadomestilo izgube dohodka, na drugi strani, če spreminjajo kmetijska zemljišča v gozd; je zaskrbljen zaradi ugotovitve Sodišča, da znesek premij zelo presega sredstva, dodeljena programu; je zaskrbljen, da zaradi tega človeški viri Komisije niso osredotočenii na sedanje cilje, ampak se morajo ukvarjati z upravljanjem premij; obravnava Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005 z dne 20. septembra 2005 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSPR) UL L 277, 21.10.2005, str.
Observes a lack of coherence between the 7 years' programming period from 2000 to 2006 for EU afforestation measures and the funds allocated to this period on the one hand and, on the other hand, the major instrument for afforestation which consists of an annual premium per hectare for beneficiaries paid over 20 years to compensate the loss of income if they convert agricultural land into forest; is worried about the Court's finding that the amount of premiums largely exceeds the funds allocated to the programme; is concerned that, as a consequence, the Commission's human resources are not focussed on current objectives but have to deal with the administration of the premiums; considers Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p.
kot prvi korak v pravo smer, ker zmanjšuje odškodninsko shemo z 20 na 15 let; poziva Komisijo, da sestavi nadaljnje predloge za izboljšanje stanja;
as a first step into the right direction, as it reduces the compensation scheme from 20 to 15 years; asks the Commission to table further proposals in order to remedy the situation;
Posebno poročilo št. 3/2005 o razvoju podeželja: preverjanje kmetijskih in okoljskih odhodkov
Special Report No 3/2005 concerning the Rural Development: The Verification of Agri-Environment expenditure
ugotavlja, da so kmetijsko-okoljski ukrepi sestavni del reformirane SKP, čeprav lahko preverjanje okoljskih odhodkov zaradi svojega delovno intenzivnega značaja in zahteve po visoko strokovnem znanju povzroča posebne težave;
Notes that agri-environment measures form an integral part of the EU's reformed CAP, although the verification of environmental expenditure can pose particular problems due to its labour-intensive character and the requirement of highly specialised knowledge;
poudarja, da so lahko dobre nacionalne prakse model za vse države članice, kot je nemška dvostopenjska metoda za preverjanje dobre kmetijske prakse (DKP) s splošnim preverjanjem 5 % kmetov in dodatnim, podrobnejšim preverjanjem 1 % kmetov; poziva odgovorne organe, da za povečanje tega znanja izboljšajo in bolje uporabijo lokalno znanje in kazalce, po možnosti z delno uporabo sredstev za tehnično pomoč v novi uredbi o razvoju podeželja;
Points out that good national practices could serve as a template for all Member States, such as the German 2-step method for verifying Good Farming Practice (GFP), with a general check of 5% of farmers and an additional, more detailed check of 1% of farmers; calls upon the responsible authorities to improve and make better use of local knowledge and indicators, possibly through the partial use of funds for technical assistance in the new Rural Development Regulation to increase such knowledge;
poziva od Komisije, da za boljšo razrešitev svoje odgovornosti oceni preverljiv značaj podukrepov v času odobritve programov za razvoj podeželja;
Urges the Commission, in order better to discharge its responsibilities, to evaluate the verifiable character of sub-measures at the time of approving the rural development programmes;
največji pomen pripisuje učinkoviti in odgovorni uporabi proračuna EU in uporabi načela, da se pobuda, ki je ni mogoče zadostno preveriti, ne sme financirati z javnimi sredstvi;
Attaches the greatest importance to an efficient and responsible use of the EU budget and the application of the principle that an initiative that is insufficiently verifiable should not be financed by public money;
zato meni, da bi morali Komisija, Svet in Parlament zagotoviti, da se to načelo pri izvajanju predlogov za kmetijsko-okoljske odhodke v načrtovanem obdobju od 2007 do 2013 bolj upošteva, brez povečanja stroškov nadzora in birokracije;
Therefore considers that the Commission, the Council and Parliament should ensure that this principle is better respected when implementing the proposals for agri-environment expenditure in the 2007 to 2013 planning period, without increasing control costs and bureaucracy;
se v celoti strinja s Sodiščem, ko izjavlja, da "so države članice na prvi stopnji odgovorne za upravljanje dejavnosti in kontrolo odhodkov ter za zagotavljanje pravilnosti in zakonitosti transakcij z učinkovitim delovanjem sistemov, ki jih preverjajo nacionalni revizijski organi" (odstavek 5.7); opominja Komisijo in Sodišče, da ob pomanjkanju primernih revizijskih sledi strukturnih programov ni razumljive in pregledne podlage za potrditev izdatkov držav članic;
Agrees fully with the Court when it states that "Member States are responsible in the first instance for the management of operations and control of expenditure and for ensuring the correctness and legality of the underlying transactions through the functioning of systems verified by national audit bodies" (paragraph 5.7); reminds the Commission as well as the Court that in the absence of an adequate audit trail of structural programmes, there is no straightforward and transparent basis for certification of expenditure by Member States;
v zvezi s tem izraža zaskrbljenost zaradi zelo resnih ugotovitev Sodišča (odstavek 5.48):
Is in view of this concerned about the Court's very serious findings, as follows (paragraph 5.48):
"pomanjkljivosti v upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemih v vseh programih v njegovem vzorcu tako za obdobje 1994-1999 kakor za obdobje 2000-2006",
"weaknesses in the management and control systems across all the programmes in its sample for both the 1994-1999 and the 2000-2006 periods",
v zvezi z obdobjem 2000-2006 da "v večini primerov sistemi potrebujejo različne stopnje izboljšav, da bi v celoti izpolnjevali temeljne uredbene zahteve za učinkovite tekoče upravne preglede in/ali neodvisne preglede vzorcev pri poslovanju",
concerning the 2000-2006 period that "most of the systems examined need varying degrees of improvement in order to fully comply with the fundamental regulatory requirements for effective day-to-day management checks and/or independent sample checks of operations",
"številne napake pri zakonitosti in pravilnosti odhodkov, zajetih v izjavah, na podlagi katerih je Komisija izvršila plačila v letu 2004";
"numerous errors of legality and regularity in the expenditure included in the declarations leading to payments by the Commission in 2004";
poziva Komisijo in države članice, da takoj sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe za posodobitev "vsakodnevnega upravljanja" z zahtevanimi standardi;
Invites the Commission and the Member States immediately to take all necessary measures in order to bring "day-to-day management" up to the required standard;
poudarja, da lahko v okviru SKP plačilne agencije pooblaščenim organom dodelijo nekatere naloge, vendar dejanska plačila nikoli ne smejo biti predmet nobenega pooblastila; ugotavlja, da tako plačilna agencija ohranja glavno odgovornost za vse odločitve, ki povzročajo dejansko plačilo; meni, da sedanje stanje znotraj strukturnih ukrepov, v katerem lahko organi upravljanja poverijo odločitev za dejansko plačilo, otežuje učinkovite nadzore in ravnotežje; zato poziva Komisijo, da ta problem hitro in ustrezno obravnava;
Points out that in the context of the CAP, the paying agencies can assign certain tasks to delegated bodies, but that actual payments may never be subject to any delegation; notes that in this way the paying agency remains primarily responsible for all the decisions which result in an actual payment; feels that the current situation in relation to structural measures, where managing authorities are allowed to delegate actual payment decisions, undermines efficient checks and balances; asks therefore the Commission to address this problem swiftly and adequately;
meni, da je potreben boljši nadzor in ne več nadzorov ter da mora zagotovilo pravilnosti in zakonitosti poslovnih dogodkov prihajati iz boljšega osnovnega nadzora pred odobritvijo uporab, med izvajanjem dejavnosti in pred končnim plačilom ter ne prek več nadzorov Komisije na kraju samem;
Believes that what is needed are better controls and not more controls and that assurance for the regularity and legality of underlying transactions has to come from better primary controls before approval of applications, during implementation of operations and before final payment, and not via more Commission on-the-spot controls;
poziva države članice, da zagotovijo naložbo ustreznih sredstev v te nadzore in primerna navodila; poziva Komisijo, da te ukrepe podpre z razširjanjem dobrih praks na tem področju;
Calls on Member States to ensure that adequate resources are invested in these controls and that proper guidance is provided; calls on the Commission to support these actions by the dissemination of good practices in this area;
poziva države članice, da izboljšajo naložbe v dejavnosti obveščanja, usmerjene k upravičencem, da jih opozorijo na pogoje financiranja, možnost njihovih pregledov in posledice kršitev;
Urges Member States to invest more in information activities directed at beneficiaries to make them aware of funding conditions, the probability of checks being made on them and the consequences of breaches;
ugotavlja, da je zaradi velikega števila nacionalnih, regionalnih in lokalnih uradov in oddelkov v državah članicah, ki so vključeni v upravljanje in nadzor strukturnih ukrepov, konsolidiranje revizijskih poročil , kakor je predlagano na oserednji ravni držav članic, potreben in učinkovit nain omogočanaj boljšega nadzora;
Notes that the high number of national, regional and local offices and departments in the Member States involved in the management and control of structural measures makes the consolidation of audit reports as proposed at central Member State level a necessary and efficient way of facilitating better controls;
ugotavlja, da se strukturni ukrepi v prihodnosti lahko obračunajo za skoraj polovico proračunskih sredstev proračuna Skupnosti, ter zato Komisijo in države članice poziva k izvajanju predlaganih sektorskih izjav na osrednji ravni držav članic;
Notes that in the future structural measures could account for nearly half the appropriations in the Community budget and urges therefore the Commission and the Member States to implement the proposed sectoral declarations at central Member State level;