natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The land in question was public land for which another farmer (the lessor) declared having grazing rights granted by the municipality.
Zadevno zemljišče je bilo javno zemljišče, za katerega je pašne pravice, ki mu jih je odobrila občina, prijavil že drug kmet (zakupodajalec).
The beneficiary, a retired farmer, who had disposed of his original holding but had retained part of his entitlements entered into two specific contracts with the lessor ostensibly to meet the requirements of the regula- tion:
Upravičenec, upokojen kmet, ki je prodal prvotno kmetijsko gospodarstvo, vendar obdržal del svojih pravic, je z zakupodajalcem sklenil dve posebni pogodbi, da bi navidezno izpolnil zahteve iz uredbe:
— a rental contract for 57 hectares of the above mentioned pasture land,
— najemno pogodbo za 57 hektarov omenjenih pašnikov,
— a ‘back to back’ contract ceding the grazing rights back to the lessor.
— podizvajalsko pogodbo, s katero je pašne pravice odstopil nazaj zakupodajalcu.
The municipality, however, had not granted any grazing right to the lessor for the parcel in question.
Vendar občina zakupodajalcu ni odobrila nobenih pašnih pravic na zadevni parceli.
In any case, any subletting (in whole or in part) of grazing rights is explicitly forbidden by municipality rules.
Poleg tega pa je v pravilniku občine izrecno prepovedano vsakršno (delno ali popolno) oddajanje pašnih pravic v podnajem.
Thus, the land was neither at the disposal of the lessor nor of the beneficiary.
Tako niti zakupodajalec niti upravičenec nista imela pravice do uporabe tega zemljišča.
Consequently, the provisions of EU legislation ( 24 ) were not respected.
Posledično določbe zakonodaje EU ( 24 ) niso bile upoštevane.
The latter caseis considered to be a clear breach of the provisions of article 29 of the governing regulation which stipulates that ‘no payment shall be made in favour of beneficiaries for whom it is established that they artificially created the conditions required for obtaining such payments’.
Zadnji primer je po mnenju Sodišča jasna kršitev določb člena 29 uredbe, ki ureja to področje, v skladu s katerimi „se plačilo ne izplača upravičencem, za katere se ugotovi, da so umetno ustvarili pogoje, ki so potrebni za pridobitev takih plačil“.
( 23 ) In its 2008 Annual Report (paragraph 5.17) the Court reported on SAPS payments made to ineligible beneficiaries who failed to meet
( 23 ) Sodišče je v svojem letnem poročilu za leto 2008 (odstavek 5.17) poročalo, da so bila plačila SEPP izplačana upravičencem, ki dejansko niso upravičeni, saj niso ustrezali opredelitvi kmeta, ker niso izvajali nobene kmetijske dejavnosti.
It provided as an example the case of municipalities bene­fiting from SAPS payments for common grassland used by local farmers for grazing their animals.
Kot primer je navedlo občine, ki so prejele plačila SEPP za skupna travišča, ki so jih lokalni kmetje uporabljali za pašo svoje živine.
( 1 ) See the Commission's reply to point 5.17 of the Court's Annual Report 2008.
_____________ ( 1 ) Glej odgovor Komisije na točko 5.17 letnega poročila Sodišča 2008.
) Article 44(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.
) Člen 44(1) in (3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1782/2003.
Other examples of accuracy errors found by the Court were the following:
Drugi primeri napak v zvezi s točnostjo, ki jih je ugotovilo Sodišče, so:
In two out of 12 transactions audited in a Member State payments were calculated on the basis of incorrect entitlements recorded in the database leading to around 20 % overpayment in each case.
V obeh primerih so nacionalni organi že pred Sodiščem odkrili, da so bila plačila izračunana na osnovi nepravilnih pravic in da bo treba vsa preplačila vrniti.
In both cases, the national authorities had already detected, prior to the Court, that payments were calculated on the basis of incorrect entitlements and that any overpayments would need to be recovered.
V dveh od 12 revidiranih transakcij v eni od držav članic so bila plačila izračunana na osnovi nepravilnih pravic, evidentiranih v podatkovni bazi, zaradi česar je v vsakem od primerov prišlo do okoli 20-odstotnega preplačila.
The Commission regrets that, such underpayments, which do not result in any loss to the EU budget, are extrapolated to the whole of the expenditure in such a way as to increase the overall error rate, thus giving the incorrect impression that the error rate is an indication of the magnitude of the overpayment.
Komisija obžaluje, da so takšna prenizka plačila, ki ne pomenijo nobene izgube za proračun EU, ekstrapolirana na celoto odhodkov tako, da se poveča splošna stopnja napak, kar ustvarja nepravilen vtis, da stopnja napak kaže na velikost preplačila.
In another Member State an SPS payment was calculated on the basis of the average value of entitlements held by the farmer and not on the basis of the average value of entitlements declared by the farmer in his application as provided by EU legislation, thereby resulting in an under- payment of around 20 %.
V drugi državi članici je bilo plačilo SEP izračunano na osnovi povprečne vrednosti pravic, ki jih je kmet imel, in ne na osnovi povprečne vrednosti pravic, ki jih je kmet prijavil v svojem zahtevku, kot je določeno v zakonodaji EU, zato je bilo plačilo za 20 % prenizko.
The other errors mentioned are formal and without financial consequences.
Druge navedene napake so formalne in brez finančnih posledic.
In EAFRD, the Court noted a case where certain conditions applying to an aid paid for organic farming had not been fully complied with.
Za EKSRP je Sodišče opazilo primer, pri katerem nekateri pogoji v zvezi s pomočjo, plačano za ekološko kmeto­vanje, niso bili popolnoma izpolnjeni.
2 (33 %) of these transactions were affected by quantifiable errors.
Na dve (33 %) od teh transakcij so vplivale količinsko opredeljive napake.
However, the Commission has put in place a control environment to verify that the management and control systems of the Member States function effectively to prevent such errors.
Vendar je Komisija vzpostavila obvladovalno okolje, da bi preverila, ali sistemi upravljanja in nadzora v državah članicah delujejo učin­kovito, da se preprečijo takšne napake.
With regard to one transaction in the area of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, the Commission’s calculation of the interim payment was a correct application of the applicable rules for the calculation of such payments as laid down in Article 76 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 which does not allow the Commission to use a different method of calculation at its discretion.
V zvezi z eno transakcijo na področju pomorskih zadev in ribištva je Komisija pri izračunu vmesnega plačila pravilno uporabila veljavna pravila za izračun takšnih plačil, kakor so opredeljena v členu 76 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1198/2006, ki določa, da Komisija ne sme uporabiti drugačne metode za izračun po svoji presoji.
Within the framework of the closure exercise the Commission will take all the appropriate measures to deduct from the final statement of expenditure and final payment claim the ineligible amount.
V okviru naloge zaključevanja programa bo Komisija sprejela vse ustrezne ukrepe, da od končnega poročila o odhodkih in končnega zahtevka za plačilo odšteje neupravičeni znesek.
National authorities reimbursed expenditure incurred nine months after the deadline established for the construction of a fishing vessel.
Nacionalni organi so povrnili odhodke, ki so nastali devet mesecev po roku za izgradnjo ribiškega plovila.
In light of the legislation this expenditure is ineligible since only in cases of ‘force majeure’ occurring within the project duration can such a deadline be set aside.
V skladu z zakonodajo so taki odhodki neupravičeni, saj se ti roki lahko razveljavijo le v primeru višje sile, do katere pride v času trajanja projekta.
FIFG: Within the framework of the closure exercise the Commission will take all the appropriate measures to deduct from the final statement of expenditure and final payment claim the ineligible amount.
FIUR: V okviru naloge zaključevanja programa bo Komisija sprejela vse ustrezne ukrepe, da od končnega poročila o odhodkih in končnega zahtevka za plačilo odšteje neupravičeni znesek.
FIFG: a final beneficiary declared, amongst others, expenses for own staff and machinery which have been estimated at selling prices rather than based on costs actually incurred for implementing the project.
FIUR: končni upravičenec je med drugim prijavil tudi stroške za lastne uslužbence in stroje, ki so bili ocenjeni po prodajni ceni, ne pa na podlagi stroškov, ki so dejansko nastali za izvajanje projekta.
As the actual costs incurred by the beneficiary could not be provided, this error has been classified as a nonquantifiable error.
Ta napaka je bila razvrščena med količinsko neopredeljive napake, saj podatkov o dejanskih stroških, ki jih je imel upravičenec, ni bilo mogoče zagotoviti.
SANCO: The Commission services carried out a certain number of checks which provided evidence that the TV advertisements were broadcast.
SANCO: Službe Komisije so opravile določeno število pregledov, na podlagi katerih so dokazale, da so bili televizijski oglasi predvajani.
Additional controls will be carried out in the future.
V prihodnje bodo opravljene dodatne kontrole.
SANCO: in the case of a payment concerning the broadcasting of TV advertisements for an anti smoking campaign, the Court found that the Commission had not adequately verified that all the services paid for had actually been delivered.
SANCO: Sodišče je pri plačilu za predvajanje televizijskih oglasov za protikadilsko kampanjo ugotovilo, da Komisija ni ustrezno preverila, ali so bile vse plačane storitve dejansko opravljene.
The system provides for several eligi­bility controls: an administrative check of all claims, cross- checks with databases to prevent the same land/animals from being claimed twice and a minimum rate of 5 % on-farm inspections to be carried out by the paying agencies.
Sistem predvideva več kontrol v zvezi z upravičenostjo: administrativni pregled vseh zahtevkov, navzkrižna preverjanja v podatkovnih zbirkah za preprečevanje dvojnih zahtevkov za nekatera zemljišča/živali in minimalno 5- odstotno stopnjo za preglede, ki jih na kmetijskih gospodar­stvih izvajajo plačilne agencije.
_____________ ( 25 ) Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.
_____________ ( 25 ) Uredba (ES) št. 73/2009 in Uredba (ES) št. 796/2004.
In the case of EAFRD, and especially for agri-environment and less favoured areas, verification of certain key elements such as surface and number of animals is made through IACS while other requirements are governed by specifically designed controls ( 26 ).
Pri EKSRP, zlasti pri kmetijsko-okoljskih ukrepih in ukrepih za območja z omeje­nimi možnostmi, se nekateri ključni elementi, kot sta površina in število živali, preverjajo z IAKS, za druge zahteve pa se uporabljajo posebej zanje zasnovane kontrole ( 26 ).
The following elements were examined:
Pregledani so bili naslednji elementi:
(I) Administrative procedures and controls to ensure correct payment including quality of databases.
I) administrativni postopki in kontrole za zagotovitev pravilnega plačila, vključno s kakovostjo podatkovnih zbirk;
(II) Control systems based on on-the-spot checks.
II) kontrolni sistemi, ki temeljijo na pregledih na kraju samem;
(III) Systems to ensure implementation and control of Cross- compliance.
III) sistemi, ki zagotavljajo izvajanje in kontroliranje navz­križne skladnosti.
(III) The Commission recalls that respect of crosscompliance criteria by farmers does not constitute an eligibility criterion and, therefore, the controls of these criteria do not pertain to the legality and the regularity of the underlying transactions.
III) Komisija opominja, da upoštevanje merila navzkrižne skladnosti s strani kmetov ni merilo za upravičenost in zato preverjanja teh meril niso povezana z zakonitostjo in pravilnostjo osnovnih transakcij.
Farmers not respecting these criteria are entitled to receive payments, but are sanctioned on the basis of the severity, extent, permanence and repetition of the noncompliance found as well as negligence or intent of the beneficiary concerned.
Kmetje, ki ne upoštevajo teh meril, so upravičeni do prejemanja plačil, vendar so kaznovani na podlagi resnosti, obsega, trajnosti in ponovitev ugotovljenih neskladnosti ter zaradi malomarnosti ali namere zadevnega upravičenca.
For one paying agency IACS was assessed to be effective, for 12 partially effective and for seven, significant weaknesses were identified which led the Court to conclude that the system was not effective.
Ta nizka stopnja napak je skladna tudi s tisto, ki jo je Sodišče samo navedlo v svojem letnem poročilu za leto 2008.
The effectiveness and constant improvement of the IACS is confirmed by the results of the conformity audits which the Commission has carried out over the past years in all Member States but Luxembourg as well as by the low error rate indicated in the control statistics which it receives from Member States and which are verified and validated by the certification bodies.
3.32 Čeprav je sistem IAKS načeloma dobro zasnovan, se je pri letnih revizijah sistemov IAKS, ki jih izvaja Sodišče, v zadnjih letih pokazalo, da na uspešnost IAKS negativno vpli­vajo netočni podatki v podatkovnih zbirkah, nepopolno navz­križno preverjanje ali nepravilno ali nepopolno nadaljnje ukre­panje v zvezi z odstopanji.
This low error rate is also in line with that of the Court itself in its 2008 Annual Report.
IAKS je bil ocenjen kot uspešen pri eni plačilni agenciji, pri 12 kot delno uspešen, pri sedmih pa so bile ugotovljene pomembne slabosti, zaradi česar je Sodišče prišlo do zaključka, da sistem ni uspešen.
( 26 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
( 26 ) Uredba Komisija (ES) št. 1975/2006 z dne 7. decembra 2006 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za izvajanje Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as crosscompliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 74).
2005 glede izvajanja kontrolnih postopkov in navzkrižne sklad­nosti v zvezi z ukrepi podpore za razvoj podeželja (UL L 368, 23.12.2006, str. 74).
The Commission found that for claim year 2008, significant defi­ciencies existed in the IACS in Bulgaria and Romania. As a result these two Member States established action plans in 2009 which have been closely followed by the Commission.
3.33 Sodišče je pri svoji reviziji osmih plačilnih agencij leta 2009 ugotovilo, da je sistem pri zagotavljanju pravilnosti plačil uspešen samo pri eni agenciji, delno uspešen pri štirih, neuspešen pa pri ostalih treh (v Grčiji, na Cipru in Malti).
For its 2009 audit of eight paying agencies, the Court found the systems to be effective in ensuring the regularity of payments in only one agency, partially effective in four agencies, and ineffective in the remaining three (Greece, Cyprus and Malta).
Ti dve državi članici sta zato leta 2009 vzpostavili akcijske načrte, ki jih Komisija skrbno spremlja.
Other Member States have deficiencies of a lesser nature in their IACS which do not render their systems ineffective but, rather, perfectible and for which they have taken or are taking action.
Pri drugih državah članicah so bile ugotovljene manjše pomanjklji­vosti v zvezi z njihovimi IAKS, vendar to še ne pomeni, da so njihovi sistemi neučinkoviti, temveč jih je treba le izboljšati, zato so že sprejeli oziroma sprejemajo ukrepe v tej smeri.
All these deficiencies are followed up through conformity clearance procedures which ensure that the risk to the EU budget is adequately covered.
Vse te pomanjkljivosti se spremljajo na podlagi postopkov potrditve skladnosti, kar omogoča, da je tveganje za proračun EU ustrezno pokrito.
The control system for the other Member States audited by the Commission in 2009 was found to be effective.
Kontrolni sistem za druge države članice, ki jih je Komisija revidirala v letu 2009, se je izkazal kot učinkovit.
However, there is scope for improvement for the following items:
Kljub temu se priporočajo izboljšave pri naslednjih točkah:
— Respect of general guidelines set out in the working document regarding agri-environment commitments and their verifiability, which notably provides that several control tools need to be used in combination;
— upoštevanje splošnih smernic, ki so opredeljene v delovnem doku­mentu o kmetijsko-okoljskih zavezah in njihove preverljivosti, ki zlasti določa, da je treba uporabiti kombinacijo več nadzornih instrumentov,
— Continued efforts are required to provide simple and clear eligi­bility criteria and to inform beneficiaries about their obligations in a clear and unequivocal manner;
— potrebni so nenehni napori, da se zagotovijo enostavna in jasna merila za upravičenost ter da so upravičenci o svojih obveznostih obveščeni na jasen in nedvoumen način,
— Application of exhaustive administrative controls, in particular as regards agri-environmental measures;
— uporaba obširnih administrativnih kontrol, zlasti v zvezi s kmetijsko-okoljskimi ukrepi,
— Improvement of quality of control reports to permit better tracea­bility and clear conclusions of the controls carried out.
— izboljšanje kakovosti poročil o kontroli, da se omogočijo boljša sledljivost in jasni sklepi v zvezi z opravljenimi kontrolami.
The results of the examination of systems are summarised in Annex 3.2.
Rezultati preverjanja sistemov so povzeti v Prilogi 3.2.
(I) Administrative procedures and controls to ensure correct payment including quality of databases
I) Administrativni postopki in kontrole za zagotovitev pravil­nega plačila, vključno s kakovostjo podatkovnih zbirk
Administrative checks must be undertaken on all applications for support and payment claims, and cover all elements that are possible and appropriate to control by administrative means ( 27 ).
Administrativni pregledi se opravijo za vse zahtevke za podporo in zahtevke za plačila ter zajemajo vse sestavne dele, ki jih je mogoče in primerno administrativno nadzorovati ( 27 ).
The administrative checks must include crosschecks wherever possible and appropriate, inter alia with data from the IACS databases.
Kadar je to mogoče in primerno, morajo administrativni pregledi vključevati navzkrižna preverjanja, med drugim s podatki iz podatkovnih zbirk IAKS.
The Court’s audit verified whether the databases were complete and reliable as well as the adequacy of checks in identifying anomalies and taking corrective action.
Sodišče je preverilo, ali so podatkovne zbirke popolne in zanesljive ter ali so pregledi primerni za ugotavljanje odstopanj in izvajanje popravnih ukrepov.
The most important systems weak­nesses found are set out below.
Najpomembnejše slabosti sistemov so navedene v nadaljevanju.
( 27 ) Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 and Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.
( 27 ) Člen 11 Uredbe (ES) št. 1975/2006 in člen 24 Uredbe (ES) št. 796/2004.
The Court found significant defi­ciencies of LPIS in three Member States that affect the effec­tiveness of administrative cross checks as illustrated hereunder:
Poleg tega morajo od leta oddaje zahtevkov 2010 države članice na letni ravni opraviti oceno kakovosti LPIS-GIS v skladu z vnaprej opredeljenimi postopki ter po potrebi poročati o rezultatih in predvidenih ukrepih za izboljšanje položaja.
Moreover, as from claim year 2010 Member States are obliged to perform a quality assessment of the LPIS-GIS on an annual basis according to pre-determined procedures and to report on the results and the actions envisaged to, where required, improve the situation.
Sodišče je v treh državah članicah odkrilo pomembne pomanjkljivosti v LPIS, ki vplivajo na učinkovitost administrativnega navzkrižnega preverjanja, kot je prikazano v nadaljevanju:
The Commission accepts that there were problems with the Greek IACS in claim year 2008.
Komisija se strinja, da so se v letu oddaje zahtevkov 2008 pojavile težave z grškim IAKS.
However the financial risk for the past is covered by the conformity clearance procedure by which, until now, some 866 million EUR has been or is being excluded from EU financing.
Vendar je finančno tveganje za preteklost zajeto v postopku potrditve skladnosti, v katerem je bilo do zdaj iz financiranja EU izvzetih ali je v postopku izvzema približno 866 milijonov EUR.
LPIS-GIS technology became mandatory in 2005.
Tehnologija LPIS-GIS je postala obvezna leta 2005.
In Greece until and including the claim year 2008 the LPIS-GIS did not contain any graphical information (ortho-photos) showing the actual eligible area of the reference parcels recorded.
V Grčiji do vključno leta vložitve zahtevkov 2008 v LPIS-GIS ni bilo grafičnih informacij (orto-foto posnetkov), ki bi prikazovale dejanske upravičene površine evidentiranih referenčnih parcel.
LPIS-GIS was still not fully operational for carrying out the necessary crosschecks as of December 2009.
LPIS-GIS še decembra 2009 ni deloval v celoti, da bi se lahko izvajali potrebni navzkrižni pregledi.
The LPIS-GIS became available in accordance with the action plan at 31 December 2008 and the roll out was done prior to the start of the 2009 claim period.
LPIS-GIS se je v skladu z akcijskim načrtom začel uporabljati 31. decembra 2008, postopno uvajanje pa je bilo opravljeno pred začetkom obdobja za oddajo zahtevkov 2009.
The problem in 2009 was caused by the late digitisation of parcels by farmers and measures have been taken to rectify the situation in the meantime by the fixation of a cut off date for the digitisation.
V letu 2009 je težavo povzročila pozna digitalizacija parcel s strani kmetov, medtem pa so bili sprejeti ukrepi za izboljšanje položaja z določitvijo končnega roka za digitalizacijo.
In Lithuania the Court found that the authorities failed to eliminate ineligible features of a total area of 13 700 ha from the eligible area of parcels recorded to be 100 % eligible in the LPIS.
V Litvi je Sodišče ugotovilo, da pristojni organi iz površine parcel, ki je v LPIS evidentirana kot 100-odstotno upravičena, niso izločili neupravičenih delov v skupni površini 13 700 ha.
The Commission is following up the deficiencies which have existed in the Lithuanian LPIS-GIS since 2005 through conformity clearance procedures.
Komisija že od leta 2005 na podlagi postopkov potrditve skladnosti spremlja pomanjkljivosti, do katerih je prišlo v litovskem LPIS-GIS.
However, the Lithuanian authorities have meanwhile informed the Commission that corrective measures have been imple­mented in the LPIS-GIS in December 2009.
Litovski organi so medtem Komisijo že obvestili, da so decembra 2009 izvedli popravne ukrepe v LPIS-GIS.
In Cyprus new orthophotos were taken and analysed in 2008.
Na Cipru so bili leta 2008 posneti in analizirani novi orto- foto posnetki.
The analysis showed that more than 39 000 reference parcels were affected by changes of land use and as a result the area eligible to SAPS aid dropped by more than 7 000 ha (i.e. 5 % of the agricultural area).
Pri analizi se je pokazalo, da so na več kot 39 000 referenčnih parcel vplivale spremembe v zvezi z rabo zemljišča, površina, upravičena do SEPP, pa se je zmanjšala za več kot 7 000 ha (tj. 5 % kmetijskih površin).
Although updated information was available, the Cypriot authorities decided to base payments for claim year 2008 on the outdated 2003 ortho-photos.
Čeprav so bile na voljo posodobljene informacije, so ciprski organi kot osnovo za izračun plačil za leto vložitve zahtevkov 2008 uporabili zastarele ortofoto posnetke iz leta 2003.
They must be processed, digitised and the results quality checked before they can be efficiently used for cross checks.
Treba jih je obde­lati in digitalizirati ter preveriti kakovost rezultatov, šele nato se lahko učinkovito uporabijo za navzkrižna preverjanja.
This process takes time.
Ta postopek je dolgo­trajen.