Traducción de «control de terrenos » (Español → Inglés) :

2. Where on-the-spot checks reveal significant irregularities for a given measure or in a region or part of a region, the competent authority shall appropriately increase the number of on-the-spot checks during the current year and shall appropriately increase the percentage of beneficiaries to be checked on-the-spot in the following year.

€ 145.2 million charged to Italy for weaknesses in the photo-interpretation of images and in the on-the-spot control procedure based on images from earlier years concerning arable crops (area aids) payments; € 127.7 million charged to Greece for shortcomings in LPIS-GIS system and in on-the-spot checks concerning area aids and nuts payments; € 69.4 million charged to Great Britain for inappropriate timing of the follow-up field visits and for the inaccurate determination of the area eligible for payments.

€ 60.6 million charged to Spain for non-respect of payment deadlines in the nuts payment scheme; € 53.7 million charged to United Kingdom for non-respect of payment deadlines; € 48.5 million charged to Italy for non-respect of payment deadlines; € 35.8 million charged to Greece because the LPIS (Land parcel identification system) implemented to manage the direct payments schemes was found to be not fully operational to the standard required and on-the-spot checks were still carried out too late to be fully effective; € 26.7 million charged to the Netherlands because of the insufficient number of substitution controls in the export refu ...[+++]nd scheme; € 17 million charged to Spain for non-respect of payment deadlines; € 8.7 million charged to France concerning the over thirty months slaughter scheme – technical and accounting controls were found to be deficient; € 7.5 million charged to France for weaknesses in the control system for subsidised-interest-loans and in secondary controls concerning Rural Development Programmes expenditure;

€ 163.7 million charged to Greece because the register of olive cultivation has not been set up thus the check on crop declarations was inoperative, and on the spot checks were carried out inadequately; € 37.4 million charged to Greece for missing system allowing the cross-checks between the system of production aid for cotton with the integrated administration and control system, late on the spot checks, and for no penalties applied where discrepancies found in area checks; € 30.9 million charged to Greece because aid for the production of grape for drying was granted for overestimated area; security of the database for the plots was ...[+++] inadequate; checks on diversion of any of the fresh grapes, before drying, to other uses was missing; € 11.3 million charged to Spain concerning fruit and vegetable withdrawal operations for missing control on environmental impact of composting, controls did not reach the final use of the freely distributed product, unsatisfactory quality of controls carried out on withdrawn produce; € 5.6 million charged to Netherlands because expenditure for projects approved under an Objective 5A programme of EAGGF-Guidance section was claimed under the Guarantee section of the EAGGF;

€ 77.13 million charged to France because direct aid was paid for ineligible land, and sanctions were not applied; € 33.36 million charged to Spain for the weaknesses concerning the key control on the management of production potential, i.e. the ban on vine planting without the prior award of replanting or new planting rights; € 9.41 million charged to Italy for incomplete checks on products withdrawn for destruction, late checks and insufficient rate of checks on accounting and documentation, insufficient checks on the quantity marketed, weaknesses in checks on product quality; no surveillance or verification of delegated controls; ...[+++]€ 8.68 million charged to France for lack of checks on projects funded by means of soft loans, several deficiencies concerning the check of minimum standards, lack of a specific aid exclusion or reduction regime; € 8.07 million charged to Greece for imprecise identification of parcels receiving aid, poor application of cross checks against the IACS systems, deficient on-the-spot controls of surfaces and of Good Farming Practices.

3. Should on-the-spot checks reveal significant irregularities in the context of a given aid scheme or in a region or part of a region, the competent authority shall appropriately increase the number of on-the-spot checks during the current year and shall appropriately increase the percentage of farmers to be checked on-the-spot in the following year.