Examples of using Programme closure in English and their translations into Slovenian
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Computer
-
Official/political
-
Programming
Payment of balance and programme closure.
Programme closure and payment of final balance.
The following is an assessment of the implementation of the Guidelines on programme closure.
Providing the basis for programme closure, these annual declarations were intended to make the process easier and quicker than in the previous period.
XAnother concern relates to the Commission's reporting on the outcome of programme closure in both areas.
People also translate
For the period from 1 January 2014 until programme closure the co-financing rate at the level of each priority for all operationalprogrammes in Cyprus shall be not higher than 85%.".
According to the Withdrawal Agreement, the CPR applies to the UK until programme closure.
Programme closure in rural development is based on the annual accounts submitted by the Member States for each financial year in the programme period(2007 to 2015) and the corresponding acceptance by the Commission(financial clearance decisions).
The supporting documentation to be provided by the Member State at programme closure is defined in the legal framework.
The Commission makes controls on allexpenditure several years after the actual year of a given payment, primarily at programme closure.
In the case of securitisation transactions it should be ensured at programme closure that at least the amount corresponding to the Union contribution has been used for the objective of supporting SMEs, in line with the principles relating to financial instruments set out in the Financial Regulation.
We also analysed the timeliness of the closure process andwhether the budgetary authority is informed about the outcome of programme closure.
In the EU's budget system, which is built on multiannual programming,we consider that programme closure should entail a final acceptance by the Commission that the expenditure for the programme period as a whole was legal and regular, account being taken of the results of all EU and national checks and audits, together with a report on programme implementation and results.
The Commission repeats its comment that expenditure is controlled severalyears after the actual year of a given payment, primarily at programme closure.
Section 3.5‘Non-functioning projects':‘at the time of the submission of the closure documents,Member States have to ensure that all projects included in the programme closure are functioning, meaning completed and in use, so considered as eligible'.
Conclusions and recommendations 58 Recommendation 2 In its legislative proposals for the post-2020 period, the Commission should introduce in the legislative proposals a final acceptance concerning the legality and regularity of programme expenditure and the outputs andresults achieved at programme closure.
This proposal may imply an acceleration in the use of payment appropriations for the programmes concerned,which would be compensated by programme closure, leaving the proposal as budgetary neutral.
The significant overlap between tasks for the different periods and the administrative difficulties faced when following up activities, some of which took place more than a decade earlier,pose a risk to the effectiveness of programme closure.
Observations 26 Legality and regularity is taken into account for the closure of 2007-2013 programmes in cohesion, but is treated separately from closure for rural development The understanding and expected consequences of 2007-2013 closure differ somewhat The Member States interpret the purpose of closure more broadly than itsdefinition in the legal framework 30 The purpose of programme closure should be clearly stated in the regulations and communicated so as to foster a common understanding by the Commission and the Member States.
In order to ease the pressure on the national budget of some Member States and to accelerate much-needed investments in Cyprus, the maximum contribution rate of 100% referred to in Article 59(4)(f)should be extended until the programme closure.
As already stated by the Court in its 2008 Annual Report, this increases the risk that ineligible projects are reimbursed by the EU budget when expenditure which has been found to be ineligible is replaced by new expenditure(‘withdrawal')without an effective ex-ante verification by the Member State before programme closure(7).(6) Article 39(2) of Council Regulation(EC) No 1260/1999 OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p.
Moreover, the proposal would allow the Commission to extend the exceptional co-financing rate of 85% for the ERDF andESF in Cyprus until programme closure.
To ease the pressure on the national budget and accelerate much-needed investments, it is proposed to extend the co-financing rate of 85% for all operational programmes supported by the ERDF andESF in Cyprus until programme closure.
To ease the pressure on the national budget and accelerate much-needed investments, the co-financing rate of 85% for all operational programmes supported by the ERDF andESF in Cyprus should therefore be extended until programme closure.
To ease the pressure on the national budget and accelerate much-needed investments, it is proposed to extend the co-financing rate of 85% for all operational programmes supported by the ERDFand ESF in Cyprus until programme closure.
In order to ease the pressure on the national budget of some Member States and to accelerate much-needed investments in Cyprus, the maximum contribution rate of 100% referred to in point(f) of Article 59(4)of that Regulation should be extended until the programme closure.
Impact of pre-financing 57 The 2014-2020 MFF rules require the Commission, after adopting an ESI funds operational programme, to pay an initial pre-financing amount39.Unused initial pre-financing will only be totally cleared at programme closure.
As already stated by the Court in its 2008 Annual Report, this increases the risk that ineligible projects are reimbursed by the EU budget when expenditure which has been found to be ineligible is replaced by new expenditure(‘withdrawal')without an effective exante verification by the Member State before programme closure( 7).
There is clear accountability for performance Requirement for the Member States to transmit to the Commission data on performance of programmes for all funds Mandatory annual implementation reports by Member States Strategic reports required from the Commission Performance data is readily and publicly available online Commission is required to explicitly accept the outputs andresults achieved at programme closure 12.
According to the closure guidelines for cohesion, at the time of submission of the closure documents,Member States have to ensure that all projects included in the programmes closure are functioning, meaning completed and in use.