natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To assess the efficiency of case management in individual cases, we tried to identify factors having a positive or negative impact on the case management processes and on the length of the procedures. 
Konkreetsete kohtuasjade menetlemise thususe hindamiseks pdis kontrollikoda leida tegureid, mis omaksid kas positiivset vi negatiivset mju kohtuasjade menetlemisele ja selle kestusele.
To do so, we selected a sample of cases (30 cases for each Court) closed in 2014 and 2015. 
Selleks koostati valim 2014. ja 2015. aastal lpetatud kohtuasjadest (30 kohtuasja mlemast kohtust).
It mainly comprised cases taking slightly more time than the average duration, together with a number of cases with short processing time with a view to identifying possible best practices (see Annex I). 
Valim koosnes peamiselt veidi le keskmise kestusega kohtuasjadest ning mitmest lhikese kestusega kohtuasjast Đ viimaste abil sooviti leida vimalikke parimaid tavasid (vt I lisa).
For these reasons, this is not a random representative sample, but targeted to particular issues. 
Seetttu ei ole tegu juhusliku esindusliku valimiga, vaid see on koostatud teatud ksimusi silmas pidades.
We examined the 60 cases throughout their entire lifecycle (see Figure 3). 
Kontrollikoda uuris 60 kohtuasja alates nende alustamisest kuni nende lpetamiseni (vt joonis 3).
We compared the time spent on the various steps of the proceedings against the CJEUŐs own 17 18 19 17 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default_en.asp It included a proportioned number of cases closed by judgments and orders for the different types of cases dealt with by both the Court of Justice and the General Court. 
Uuriti hagi 17 18 19 20 16 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default_en.asp Valim sisaldas proportsionaalselt mlema kohtu erinevat liiki kohtuasju, mis olid lpetatud nii otsuse kui mrusega.
Another criterion was that the Judge or the Advocate-General had to be still in office at the CJEU. 
Tiendava kriteeriumina pidi kohtuasjaga tegelenud kohtunik vi kohtujurist endiselt ametis olema.
Cases which took longer than twice the average duration were excluded from the sampling population in order to focus on most typical cases. 
Kige tpilisematele kohtuasjadele keskendumiseks jeti andmekogumist vlja keskmisest enam kui kaks korda kauem kestnud kohtuasjad.
For the steps from the lodging of the case to the end of the written procedure, we analysed internal procedures, documents of the Registry related to the selected cases and the questionnaires completed by the Registry, and we held interviews with relevant staff in those services. 
esitamise ja kirjaliku menetluse lpetamise vahele jvaid etappe Đ analsiti sisemenetlusi, kohtukantseleis valitud kohtuasju puudutavaid dokumente, kohtukantselei tidetud ksimustikke, ja vesteldi kohtu teenistuste asjaomaste ttajatega.
For the steps after the written procedure, we examined documents made available to us subject to the limitation described in paragraph 13 and the questionnaires completed by the Judges/Advocates-General or their rfrendaires. 
Kirjalikule menetlusele jrgnevate etappide jaoks uuriti audiitoritele kttesaadavaks tehtud dokumente (vttes arvesse punktis 13 kirjeldatud piiranguid) ja kohtunike/kohtujuristide vi nende nunike tidetud ksimustikke.
In addition, we analysed the information included in the judgments and orders, and held several meetings with staff of the Cabinets of both Presidents to obtain explanations and procedural descriptions on systems21. 
Lisaks analsisid audiitorid kohtuotsustes ja kohtumrustes sisaldunud teavet ning kohtusid ssteemide selgitamiseks ja nende menetluste kirjeldamiseks mitu korda mlema kohtu presidendi kabinettide ttajatega21.
For the support services to the judicial process (translation, IT, research and documentation), we analysed the systems in place and held interviews with the responsible staff. 
Seoses kohtupidamise tugiteenustega (tlge, IT, teave ja dokumentatsioon) analsiti olemasolevaid ssteeme ja vesteldi asjaomaste ttajatega.
For the translation service, we reviewed in particular the procedures for setting deadlines, planning and reporting on performance. 
Tlkimisega seoses vesteldi eelkige thtaegade seadmise menetluste, planeerimise ja tulemuste alase aruandluse teemadel.
We also reviewed progress in applying the Key Inter-institutional Activity and Performance Indicators (KIAPI). 
Edenemist mdeti ka institutsioonidevaheliste peamiste tulemusnitajate (KIAPI) abil.
For IT, we examined the general architecture of systems for case management and the strategic planning for 2016-2020. 
IT valdkonnas uuriti kohtuasjade menetlemiseks loodud ssteemide lesehitust ja strateegilist kavandamist aastateks 2016Đ2020.
OBSERVATIONS The process of case management and its duration 22. 
THELEPANEKUD Kohtuasjade menetlemise protsess ja selle kestus 22.
As shown by Figure 3, cases are received and are initially handled by the Registries in both the Court of Justice and in the General Court. 
Nagu nidatud joonisel 3, tegeletakse hagidega alguses mlema kohtu (Euroopa Kohtu ja ldkohtu) kohtukantseleides.
The course of the first part of the procedure (the written procedure) is laid down in detail in the Rules of Procedure of each of the two Courts, which specify in particular the documents concerned and the applicable time-frames. 
Menetluse esimese osa (kirjaliku menetluse) kik on ksikasjalikult paika pandud mlema kohtu kodukordades, kus loetletakse asjaomased dokumendid ja rakendatavad thtajad.
The cases are assigned by the Presidents of the two Courts to Chambers and/or to Reporting Judges and, in the case of the Court of Justice, the First Advocate-General assigns the case to an Advocate-General. 
Mlema kohtu presidendid mravad kohtuasjad kodadele ja/vi ettekandja-kohtunikele, ning Euroopa Kohtus mrab peakohtujurist kohtuasja hele kohtujuristile.
The Judges and Advocates-General work on the cases assigned directly to them but also they analyse other cases at the level of the Chamber to which they belong or of the Court. 
Kohtunikud ja kohtujuristid ttavad kll otse neile mratud kohtuasjadega, kuid ka nemad analsivad teisi kohtuasju selle koja (vi kohtu) tasandil, mille koosseisu nad kuuluvad.
They are assisted in the performance of their duties by their Cabinet staff: rfrendaires and assistants. 
Oma lesannete titmisel aitavad neid nende kabinettide ttajad: nunikud ja assistendid.
Each Cabinet consists of three rfrendaires for Judges and four for Advocates-General. 
Iga kohtuniku kabinetis ttab kolm ja iga kohtujuristi kabinetis neli nunikku.
Rfrendaires have a key role in supporting the Judges and Advocates-General in cases for which they are responsible, as well as in assisting in the preparation of the general meetings or Chamber conferences and providing analysis on other cases which are dealt with in the Chambers to which the Judge is assigned. 
Nunikel on keskne roll kohtunike ja kohtujuristide toetamisel neile mratud kohtuasjades, lisaks ka nende abistamisel ldkoosolekute ja kodade koosolekute ettevalmistamisel ning kodades kohtunikule mratud teiste kohtuasjade analsimisel.
The quality, management and availability of these resources are therefore important factors in ensuring efficient case management. 24. 
Kohtuasjade thusa menetlemise tagamise seisukohast on seega oluline nende ttajate kvaliteet, juhtimine ja olemasolu.
After assignment of the case and completion of the written procedure, a preliminary report22 is drafted and subsequently presented by the Reporting Judge (at the General Court 22 19 The preparation of the preliminary report follows in principle the translation of most of the procedural documents into French, the only deliberation language of the CJEU. 
Peale kohtuasja mramist ja kirjaliku menetluse lpetamist koostatakse esialgne ettekanne22, mille ettekandja-kohtunik hiljem ette kannab (ldkohtus lisandub sellele kohtuistungiks koostatud ettekanne).
This is discussed at the general meeting of the Court of Justice or at the conference of the General CourtŐs Chamber. 
Neid arutatakse Euroopa Kohtu ldkoosolekul vi ldkohtu koja koosolekul.
The next steps in the lifecycle of the case are the hearing23 (which can be omitted under certain conditions24) and, for many cases in the Court of Justice25, the issuance of the Advocate-GeneralŐs opinion. 
Kohtuasja jrgmiseks etapiks on kohtuistung23 (mille vib teatud tingimustel ka ra jtta24) ning Euroopa Kohtus ka paljudel juhtudel25 kohtujuristi ettepanek.
The closure of the procedure includes the deliberation and the pronouncement of the decision26. 
Menetluse lpetamine hlmab ka nupidamist ja lahendi kuulutamist26.
Publication in the online Reports of cases (Recueil numrique de la jurisprudence)27 may follow depending on the criteria set out by each Court. procedural document is generally translated within two months after the completion of the written procedure. 
Olenevalt kohtu seatud kriteeriumidest vib sellele jrgneda kohtuasjade kohta veebiaruannete avaldamine elektroonilises kohtulahendite kogumikus (recueil numrique de la jurisprudence)27.
Evidently, the Reporting Judge and the President of the relevant Chamber are also responsible for ensuring appropriate monitoring. 
Piisava jrelevalve eest vastutavad loomulikult ka ettekandja-kohtunik ja asjaomase koja president.
At the Court of justice, the First Advocate-General assumes overall responsibility for monitoring the progress of opinions being drawn up by the Advocates-General. 
Euroopa Kohtus vastutab kohtujuristide koostatavate ettepanekute edenemise eest peakohtujurist.
As described in paragraph 9, the CJEU publishes the total average duration of cases as a key performance indicator. 
Nagu kirjeldatud punktis 9, kasutatakse kohtuasjade keskmist kestust Euroopa Liidu Kohtu he peamise tulemusnitajana ja need andmed ka avaldatakse.
We confirmed that the calculation of the average durations of the key steps (by type of decision, and by type of procedure or subject matter) used by the CJEU for internal purposes, relating to proceedings closed in 2014 and 2015 at the Court of Justice and the General Court, had been done correctly. 
Audiitorid leidsid, et Euroopa Liidu Kohtus kohtuasjade (Euroopa Kohtu ja ldkohtu 2014. ja 2015. aastal lpetatud kohtuasjad) peamiste etappide (lahendi liigi, menetluse liigi ja teema kaupa) keskmine kestus oli arvutatud igesti; saadud teave oli meldud institutsioonisiseseks kasutamiseks.
In addition, we carried out a more detailed calculation of the average durations which we considered relevant for case management (see Figure 4). 
Lisaks arvutasid audiitorid ksikasjalikumalt vlja kohtuasjade menetlemise seisukohast olulised keskmised kestused (vt joonis 4).
For several key steps, standard indicative deadlines are set by the two Courts (see paragraphs 54 and 57). 
Mitme peamise etapi kohta on mlemad kohtud paika pannud standardsed soovituslikud thtajad (vt punktid 54 ja 57).
However, because of the variability in the nature of and factors affecting the cases, these deadlines are indicative, and cannot be met in every case. 
Kohtuasju mjutavate erinevate tegurite tttu on need aga soovituslikud thtajad, millest ei ole alati vimalik kinni pidada.
As shown by Figure 4, the average duration for key steps generally exceeds the indicative deadlines, though there are differences between the two Courts. 
Nagu nidatud joonisel 4, letab peamiste etappide keskmine kestus tavaliselt soovituslike thtaegade oma, kuigi kahe kohtu vahel on ka erinevusi. kuud kuud
For example, the average time for the preparation of the preliminary report for cases closed in 2014 and 2015 in the Court of Justice was about three months (against an indicative target of two months) and, in the General Court, about nine months (against an indicative target of either two or four months, depending on the type of case28). 
Niteks kestis Euroopa Kohtus 2014. ja 2015. aastal lpetatud kohtuasjade esialgsete ettekannete koostamine keskmiselt ligikaudu kolm kuud (soovituslikuks thtajaks oli kaks kuud), ldkohtus aga ligikaudu heksa kuud (soovituslikuks thtajaks oli kohtuasja liigist olenevalt kas kaks vi neli kuud28).
Our review covered the following key processes of case management: - Lodging and initial processing (including the reception and communication of the procedural documents), known as the written procedure, by the respective Registries (see paragraphs 36 to 40); - Assignment by the Presidents of the two Courts, including by the First Advocate-General where relevant (see paragraphs 41 to 45); - Handling of the cases by Chambers and Reporting Judges following their assignment, subject to the restrictions described in paragraph 13 (see paragraphs 46 to 50); and - The monitoring and management of the advancement of the cases by the two CourtsŐ Presidents (see paragraphs 51 to 60). The use of replies to our questionnaires 33. 
Kontrollikoja tehtud tulemushindamine hlmas kohtumenetluse jrgnevaid peamisi protsesse: - hagi esitamine ja esialgne menetlemine (sh menetlusdokumentide saamine ja kitlemine) vastava kohtu kohtukantseleis (tuntud ka kirjaliku menetluse nime all) (vt punktid 36Đ40); - kohtuasja mramine (mlema kohtu presidendid ja vajaduse korral ka peakohtujurist) (vt punktid 41Đ45); - kohtuasja menetlemine (kojad ja ettekandja-kohtunikud) peale nende mramist; selles etapis vivad kehtida punktis 13 kirjeldatud piirangud (vt punktid 46Đ50); - jrelevalve kohtuasjade menetlemise edenemise le ja menetlusprotsessi juhtimine (mlema kohtu presidendid) (vt punktid 51Đ60); Kontrollikoja ksimustikele antud vastuste kasutamine 33.
The questionnaires related to the 60 cases submitted to the Registries and to the Judges (and where appropriate to the Advocates-General) sought to obtain information as to the factors affecting the duration of the procedure (see paragraph 19), information as to the 28 29 25 Two months for appeals and four months for the other cases. 
Kohtukantseleidele, kohtunikele ja vajaduse korral ka kohtujuristidele saadetud ksimustikud puudutasid 60 kohtuasja ning nendega pti saada teavet kohtuasjade kestust 28 29 23 Kaks kuud apellatsioonkaebuste ja neli kuud muude kohtuasjade puhul.
In order to be complete, the average duration of cases closed by orders broken down by key steps is shown in Figure 4. 
Joonisel 4 esitatakse mrusega lpetatud kohtuasjade keskmine kestus kige olulisemate etappide kaupa.
It should be noted however that, whilst cases closed by judgments pass through all steps of the procedure, those decided by orders may be closed at differing stages of the procedure and for many different reasons. 
Seejuures tuleb mrkida, et kui otsusega lpetatud kohtuasjad lbivad menetluse kik etapid, siis mrusega lpetatud menetlused vib lpetada menetluse erinevates etappides ja erinevatel phjustel.
time allocated to each reason and further detailed explanations for each particular case (e.g. best practices). 
mjutavate tegurite (vt punkt 19) ja igale tegurile eraldatud aja kohta, ning ksiti ksikasjalikke selgitusi iga konkreetse kohtuasja kohta (nt parimad tavad).
However, the replies received contained variable levels of information. 
Saadud vastused sisaldasid aga vga erineva phjalikkusega teavet.
On the basis of the replies received, we analysed the frequency of the factors evoked by the CJEU. 
Vastuste alusel analsisid audiitorid Euroopa Liidu Kohtu nimetatud tegurite sagedust.
In the vast majority of cases, the Registries provided information on the time attributable to each factor affecting the duration. 
Valdava enamiku kohtuasjade puhul andsid kohtukantseleid teavet kigi menetluse kestust mjutanud tegurite kohta.
The Judges and Advocates-General provided such information for a more limited number of the cases. 
Kohtunikud ja kohtujuristid andsid sellist infot palju viksema arvu kohtuasjade kohta.
Therefore, we were unable, for all cases sampled, to assess the impact on duration of the factors evoked. 
Seetttu ei suutnud kontrollikoda kigi kohtuasjade puhul hinnata, kui palju loetletud tegurid kohtuasjade kestust pikendasid.
Annex II provides a detailed analysis of the responses to the questionnaires showing the frequency of the factors evoked by the Registries, Judges and Advocates-General affecting the duration of procedures. 
II lisas analsitakse ksikasjalikult ksimustikele antud vastuseid ja esitatakse kohtukantseleide, kohtunike ja kohtujuristide poolt menetlusi pikendavate asjaoludena nimetatud tegurite sagedus.
Lodging and initial processing in the Registries (written procedure) 36. 
Hagi esitamine ja esialgne menetlemine (kirjalik menetlus) 36.
Our analysis shows that this step took on average 6.6 months at the Court of Justice and 9.1 months at the General Court in the years 2014 and 2015. 
Kontrollikoja anals nitab, et nimetatud etapp kestis aastatel 2014 ja 2015 Euroopa Kohtus ja ldkohtus keskmiselt vastavalt 6,6 kuud ja 9,1 kuud.
It should be noted that the duration of this phase is determined by the Rules of Procedure, which set deadlines for the submission of the various procedural documents, but also depends on the parties involved (requesting for example the extension of deadlines or the confidential treatment of certain information) and on whether third parties request to intervene in the proceedings. 
Tuleb mrkida, et selle etapi kestust mjutab kodukord, kus seatakse thtajad teatud menetlusdokumentide esitamiseks, kuid ka kohtuasja pooltest (kes vivad nuda niteks thtaegade pikendamist vi teatud teabe konfidentsiaalsuse silitamist), ning sellest, kas kohtuasjaga soovivad hineda kolmandad isikud.
An overview of the most frequent factors that, according to the Registries in the replies related to the 60 selected cases, affected the duration of the written procedure is presented in Figure 5 for the Court of Justice and in Figure 6 for the General Court. 26 
Joonisel 5 (Euroopa Kohus) ja joonisel 6 (ldkohus) esitatakse levaade kige sagedasematest teguritest, mis kohtukantseleide poolt 60 valitud kohtuasja kohta antud vastuste kohaselt mjutasid kirjaliku menetluse kestust. 24
Figure 5 Đ Most frequent factors affecting the duration of the written procedure of the 30 selected cases at the Court of Justice Source: ECA analysis of CJEU questionnaires. Figure 6 Đ Most frequent factors affecting the duration of the written procedure of the 30 selected cases at the General Court 27 33% 17% 13% 13% 10% 10% Translations expected from the institutions that are parties to the proceedings Workload of DG Translation Granting one or several applications to intervene Request to produce documents sent to the parties Admission of a second exchange of pleadings (reply/ rejoinder) Extension of a time-limit at the request of a party 87% 67% 53% 63% 40% 20% 20% 20% Reception and processing of procedural documents at the Registry Admission of a second exchange of pleadings (reply/rejoinder) Regularisation request Other procedural question to determine Extension of a time-limit at the request of a party Granting one or several applications to intervene Application for leave to intervene Treatment of a voluminous document Source: ECA analysis of CJEU questionnaires. 
Joonis 6. ldkohtus valitud 30 kohtuasja puhul kige sagedamini kirjalikku menetlust mjutanud tegurid 25 33% 17% 13% 13% 10% 10% Oodatakse tlkeid menetluse poolteks olevatelt institutsioonidelt Tlkedirektoraadi tkoormus he vi mitme menetlusse astumise avalduse rahuldamine Pooltelt nuti dokumentide esitamist Menetlusdokumentide teistkordse vahetamise vimaldamine (repliik/vasturepliik) Thtaja pikendamine he poole taotlusel 87% 67% 53% 63% 40% 20% 20% 20% Menetlusdokumentide saabumine ja ksitlemine kohtukantseleis Menetlusdokumentide teistkordse vahetamise vimaldamine (repliik/vasturepliik) Puuduste krvaldamise nue Muu tpsustamata menetluslik ksimus Thtaja pikendamine he poole taotlusel he vi mitme menetlusse astumise avalduse rahuldamine Menetlusse astumise avaldus Mahuka dokumendi ksitlemine Allikas: Euroopa Kontrollikoja anals Euroopa Liidu Kohtu ksimustike phjal.
39. The overview shows that for the Court of Justice the two most frequent factors highlighted are related to the translations made by other EU institutions30 and those due to the workload of the CJEUŐs Directorate-General for Translation (DG TRAD)31. 
39. levaade nitab, et Euroopa Kohtus on kaks kige sagedamini nimetatud tegurit seotud teistes ELi institutsioonides tehtavate tlgete30 ja Euroopa Liidu Kohtu tlkedirektoraadi (DG TRAD) suure tkoormusega31.
Examples of the reasons for prolongation of the written procedure for the Court of Justice and for the General Court are shown in Box 2. 
2. selgituses tuuakse niteid Euroopa Kohtus ja ldkohtus kirjalikku menetlust pikendavatest teguritest.
28 Box 2 Đ Examples of the prolongation of the written procedure at the Court of Justice and at the General Court Court of Justice One case concerned a reference for a preliminary ruling where the request made by the national court was not sufficiently detailed. 
Nited kirjaliku menetluste pikenemisest Euroopa Kohtus ja ldkohtus Euroopa Kohus ks juhtum puudutas eelotsusetaotlust, mis ei olnud piisavalt ksikasjalik. Euroopa Kohtul oli nimetatud kohtuasja tagajrgi raske hinnata.
The assessment by the Court of Justice of the implications of the case turned out to be complex. 
Liikmesriigi kohtule tpsustavate selgituste saamiseks kirjaliku palve saatmiseks kulus kolm kuud.
30 31 32 EU institutions must provide translations in French of the procedural documents for cases in which they are involved. 
ELi institutsioonid peavad tlkima prantsuse keelde nende kohtuasjade menetlusdokumendid, milles nad osalevad.
E.g. the reception and processing of procedural documents at the Registry (as well as decisions taken by the Judges on the procedural follow-up), the admission of second exchange of pleadings, the regularization of procedural documents, other procedural questions, the extension of deadlines requested by parties and the applications to intervene. 
Niteks menetlusdokumentide laekumine ja ksitlemine kohtukantseleis (samuti kohtunike otsused edasiste menetluslike sammude vtmise kohta), teistkordne seisukohtade vahetamine, menetlusdokumentidest puuduste krvaldamine, muud menetlusksimused, poolte taotletud thtaegade pikendamised ja menetlusse astumise avaldused.
The process of assignment of cases referred to the Courts 41. 
Kohtuasjade mramise protsess 41.
In each of the Courts, the assignment of cases takes place when a sufficient stock of new cases has built up to permit a balanced allocation of the workload among Judges. 
Mlemas kohtus mratakse kohtuasju siis, kui on kogunenud kllaldaselt uusi hagisid selleks, et vimaldada tkoormuse tasakaalustatud jagamist kohtunike vahel.
The analysis of data relating to the cases closed in 2014 and 2015 shows that the average time taken from receipt of a case to assignment to a Judge is 2.3 months at the Court of Justice and 1.5 months at the General Court. 
2014. ja 2015. aastal lpetatud kohtuasjade andmete anals nitab, et hagiavalduse saamisest kuni selle kohtunikule mramiseni kulus Euroopa Kohtus ja ldkohtus keskmiselt vastavalt 2,3 ja 1,5 kuud.
However, this does not have a significant impact on the overall time taken to process the cases, because essential preliminary work carried out in the relevant Registry takes place at the same time. 
See ei mjuta aga mrkimisvrselt kohtuasjade ldise menetlemisaja kestust, kuna asjaomane kohtukantselei tegeleb samal ajal ettevalmistava tga.
Court of Justice 42. 
Euroopa Kohus 42.
The President of the Court of Justice is responsible for assignment to an individual Reporting Judge, and the First Advocate-General assigns the case to an Advocate-General. 
Euroopa Kohtu presidendi lesanne on kohtuasja jaoks ettekandja-kohtuniku ning peakohtujuristi lesanne kohtujuristi mramine.
The assignment takes account of several factors, including the current workload of Judges and similarity with other cases. 
Mramisel vetakse arvesse mitut tegurit, sealhulgas kohtunike tkoormust ja kohtuasja sarnasust teiste kohtuasjadega.