natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Facility coordinates financing from different existing instruments (see Table 2). 
Pagulasrahastu koordineerib rahastamist eri rahastamisvahenditest (vt tabel 2).
8 9 Articles 4 and 9 of the Commission Decision (C (2015) 9500) as amended by the Commission Decision of 10 February 2016. 
8 9 Komisjoni otsuse C(2015) 9500 (mida on muudetud komisjoni 10. veebruari 2016. aasta otsusega) artiklid 4 ja 9.
The EU Member States contributed these Ű2 billion in the form of externally assigned revenue to the EU budget and the Ű2 billion were assigned to the budget lines of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance and humanitarian aid. 
ELi liikmesriigid maksid need 2 miljardit eurot välise sihtotstarbelise tuluna ELi eelarvesse ning summa kanti ühinemiseelse abi rahastamisvahendi ja humanitaarabi eelarveridadele.
In legal terms, the Facility is therefore entirely funded by the EU budget. 
Juriidiliselt rahastatakse pagulasrahastut seega täielikult ELi eelarvest. Tabel 2.
Table 2 Đ Sources of the FacilityŐs funds 11 Financing instruments (in million euro) Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance Development Cooperation Instrument Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace Subtotal Non-humanitarian aid (2) EU Budget line Humanitarian aid (1) 23 02 01 22 02 03 21 02 19 02 01 TOTAL (1+2) Contributions from Member States (b) Total budget under the Facility (a+b) 1 090 1 400 910 1 560 20 20 Source: European Commission ŇFirst annual report on the Facility for refugees in TurkeyÓ. 
Rahastu vahendite allikad 11 Rahastamisvahendid (miljonites eurodes) Humanitaarabi (1) ELi eelarverida 230201 Ühinemiseelse abi rahastamisvahend Arengukoostöö rahastamisvahend Stabiilsuse ja rahu edendamise rahastamisvahend Mittehumanitaarse abi vahesumma (2) 220203 21 02 190201 KOKKU (1 + 2) ELi eelarve (a) Liikmesriikide osalus (b) Rahastu kogueelarve (a+b) 310 1 090 1 400 650 20 20 910 1 560 20 20 Allikas: Euroopa Komisjoni esimene aastaaruanne Türgi pagulasrahastu kohta.
The assistance focuses on six priority areas: (1) humanitarian assistance, (2) migration management, (3) education, (4) health, (5) municipal infrastructure and (6) socio-economic support10. 
Abi keskendub kuuele prioriteetsele valdkonnale: 1) humanitaarabi, 2) rändehaldus, 3) haridus, 4) tervishoid, 5) munitsipaaltaristu ning 6) sotsiaal-majanduslik abi10.
The projects funded by the Facility are selected and implemented through the underlying instruments (see Table 2) and therefore, in accordance with their applicable rules and requirements11. 
Rahastust toetatavad projektid valitakse ja viiakse ellu rahastu aluseks olevate rahastamisvahendite abil (vt tabel 2) ning seega kooskõlas selle konkreetse rahastamisvahendi eeskirjade ja nõuetega11.
This includes implementation through the EU Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis Đ the ÔEUTF MadadŐ12. 
See hõlmab ka projektide elluviimist ELi Süüria kriisile reageerimise piirkondliku usaldusfondi (EUTF Madad) kaudu12.
Annex II illustrates in more detail how this works. 
II lisas on täpsemalt selgitatud, kuidas see toimib.
In the EU-Turkey Statement dated 18 March 201613, the Members of the European Council and Turkey confirmed their commitment to implementing the JAP and to ending irregular migration from Turkey to Greece14. 
ELi-Türgi 18. märtsi 2016. aasta avalduses13 kinnitasid Euroopa Ülemkogu liikmed ja Türgi oma kindlat tahet rakendada ühist tegevuskava ja teha lõpp ebaseaduslikule rändele Türgist Kreekasse14.
On this occasion, they also agreed that an Minutes of the second Steering Committee dated 12 May 2016. 
Samuti leppisid nad kokku, et enne 2018. aasta lõppu võiks rahastu Juhtkomitee teise koosoleku protokoll, 12. mai 2016.
Article 6(3) of the Commission Decision (C (2015) 9500) as amended by the Commission Decision of 10 February 2016. 
Komisjoni otsuse C(2015) 9500 (mida on muudetud komisjoni 10. veebruari 2016. aasta otsusega) artikli 6 lõige 3.
The ŐEUTF MadadŐ was created in December 2014 with the objective to address long-term economic, educational and social needs of Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries, including Turkey. 
EUTF Madad loodi 2014. aasta detsembris eesmärgiga rahuldada naaberriikides, sh Türgis asuvate Süüria pagulaste pikaajalisi majanduslikke, hariduslikke ja sotsiaalseid vajadusi.
Following the establishment of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey, a share of the FacilityŐs funds is implemented via the ÔEUTF MadadŐ. 
Pärast Türgi pagulasrahastu loomist kasutatakse osa rahastu vahenditest EUTF Madadi kaudu.
The text of the second EU-Turkey statement is available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/pdf In April 2018, the Commission reported that Ôthe irregular arrivals [from Turkey to Greece] remain 97 % lower than the period before the Statement became operationalŐ. 
ELi-Türgi teise avalduse tekst on saadaval veebiaadressil http://www.consilium.europa.eu/et/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/pdf. 2018. aasta aprillis teatas komisjon, et ebaseaduslik ränne Türgist Kreekasse on 97% väiksem kui enne avalduse kehtima hakkamist.
For further 910 1 600 2 000 3 000 10 11 12 13 14 EU Budget (a) 310 650 20 20 690 1 000 
690 910 1 600 1 000 2 000 3 000 10 11 12 13 14
additional Ű3 billion funding could be added to the FacilityŐs budget before the end of 2018. 
eelarvesse lisanduda veel 3 miljardit eurot.
On 28 June 2018, the European Council agreed to launch the second tranche of the FacilityŐs budget. 
28. juunil 2018 nõustus Euroopa Ülemkogu laskma käiku rahastu eelarve teise osamakse.
The FacilityŐs Steering Committee The Facility is governed by a Steering Committee, which is chaired by the Commission, and includes representatives from all EU Member States. 
Rahastu juhtkomitee Rahastut haldab juhtkomitee, mida juhib komisjon ja kuhu kuuluvad kõigi ELi liikmesriikide esindajad.
Representatives from Turkey attend its meetings in an advisory capacity and participate to the discussions related to the implementation of the support. 
Türgi esindajad osalevad juhtkomitee koosolekutel nõuandvas rollis ning võtavad osa abi rakendamisega seotud aruteludest.
The Steering CommitteeŐs role is to provide strategic guidance. 
Juhtkomitee ülesanne on anda strateegilisi juhiseid.
This involves Ôsetting overall priorities, [the] types of actions to be supported, the instruments to be used [...] and the coordination of the actionsŐ financed under the Facility15. 
See seisneb üldiste prioriteetide, toetatavate meetmeliikide ning kasutatavate vahendite kindlaksmääramises ja pagulasrahastust toetatavate meetmete koordineerimises15.
It is also in charge of monitoring and assessing the implementation of the actions. The Commission retains ultimate responsibility for managing actions. 
Juhtkomitee jälgib ja hindab ka meetmete rakendamist. Lõplik vastutus meetmete juhtimise eest on komisjonil.
The Directorate General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR), with the EU Delegation in Turkey, is responsible for implementing projects funded via IPA, whereas the Directorate General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO) is responsible for the humanitarian strand. 
Naabruspoliitika ja laienemisläbirääkimiste peadirektoraat (DG NEAR) koos ELi delegatsiooniga Türgis vastutab ühinemiseelse abi rahastamisvahendist rahastatavate projektide elluviimise eest ning Euroopa kodanikukaitse ja humanitaarabioperatsioonide peadirektoraat (DG ECHO) vastutab humanitaarabi valdkonna eest.
The Commission is also in charge of the projects implemented via the EUTF Madad. 
Komisjon juhib ka EUTF Madadi kaudu rahastatavate projektide elluviimist.
AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH Our objective was to assess the management of the Facility and the results achieved so far. 
AUDITI ULATUS JA LÄHENEMISVIIS Kontrollikoja eesmärk oli hinnata pagulasrahastu haldamist ja seni saavutatud tulemusi.
The audit covered the period from the establishment of the Facility until 31 March 2018. 
Audit hõlmas perioodi alates rahastu loomisest kuni 31. märtsini 2018.
The main audit question was: ÔIs the Facility for Refugees in Turkey effectively supporting refugees in Turkey?Ő. 
Üldine auditiküsimus oli järgmine: „Kas Türgi pagulasrahastu toetab Türgis asuvaid pagulasi tõhusalt?“.
12 15 
12 15
In order to answer this question, we examined whether the Commission identified the priority needs of refugees and addressed them in a swift and coordinated manner. (b) Have the humanitarian projects funded by the Facility achieved their expected results? 
b) Kas pagulasrahastust toetatavad humanitaarabiprojektid saavutasid oodatud tulemused?
In order to answer this question, we examined the implementation, monitoring and results achieved by a sample of projects supported by the Facility. 
Sellele küsimusele vastamiseks uuris kontrollikoda pagulasrahastust toetatavate projektide valimi elluviimist, järelevalvet ja saavutatud tulemusi.
Because most non-humanitarian projects were not yet at a sufficiently advanced stage of implementation at the time of the audit16, we focused this part of our analysis on humanitarian projects. 
Kuna enamiku muude kui humanitaarabiprojektide elluviimine ei olnud auditi ajaks piisavalt kaugele jõudnud,16 keskendus kontrollikoda analüüsi selles osas humanitaarabiprojektidele.
We audited a sample of 10 humanitarian projects amounting to Ű458 million (see Annex III A). 
Kontrollikoda auditeeris kümnest humanitaarabiprojektist koosnevat valimit, mille eelarve oli kokku 458 miljonit eurot (vt III A lisa).
We selected the sample to have a balanced coverage of projects in terms of financial significance, sectors (basic needs, protection, health, education) and types of implementing partner (UN agencies, INGOs). 
Kontrollikoda pidas valimi koostamisel silmas tasakaalu projektide rahalise mõju, sektorite (esmavajadused, kaitse, tervishoid, haridus) ja rakenduspartnerite liikide (ÜRO asutused, rahvusvahelised vabaühendused) käsitlemisel.
The sample was selected from a total of 45 humanitarian contracts, and represents 33 % of the total amount of contracted humanitarian assistance. 
Valim moodustati 45 humanitaarabi lepingu põhjal ning selles oli esindatud 33% kogu lepingulisest humanitaarabist.
The audit included desk reviews and interviews with various Commission departments, the EU Delegation and ECHO offices in Turkey, some EU Member StatesŐ representatives to the Steering Committee of the Facility, the Turkish authorities, international bodies and non-governmental organisations and final beneficiaries17. 
Audit hõlmas dokumentide hindamist ning vestlusi komisjoni eri osakondade, ELi delegatsiooni ja ECHO esindustega Türgis, mõningate ELi liikmesriikide esindajatega rahastu juhtkomitees, Türgi ametiasutuste, rahvusvaheliste organisatsioonide, vabaühenduste ja lõplike abisaajatega17.
We visited eight out of the ten projects in our sample during a visit to Turkey in January 201818. 
Kontrollikoda külastas 2018. aasta jaanuaris Türgis viibides kõnealusesse valimisse kuulunud kümnest projektist kaheksat18.
The Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies (MoFSP) did not grant us access to its database of eligible beneficiaries of the audited cash-transfer projects (the Emergency Social Non-humanitarian assistance mainly relates to longer-term development aid with a focus on education, health, migration management and socio-economic support. 
Türgi pere-ja sotsiaalpoliitika ministeerium ei andnud kontrollikojale juurdepääsu auditeeritud rahaliste toetuste projektide (hädaolukorra sotsiaalkindlustusvõrk (ESSN); tingimuslike haridustoetuste süsteem (CCTE)) abikõlblike toetusesaajate andmebaasile.
Due to their specific nature, they take time to implement, usually between two (for operational actions such as training, health-related equipment, etc.) and four years (for infrastructure-related actions such as health care centres and schools). 
Selliste projektide eriolemuse tõttu võtab nende elluviimine aega, tavaliselt kaks (selliste operatiivmeetmete puhul nagu väljaõpe, tervishoiuga seotud vahendid jne) kuni neli aastat (taristuga seotud meetmed, nagu arstiabikeskused ja koolid).
Annex III lists all the organisations interviewed during the audit visit to Turkey. 
III lisas on loetletud kõik organisatsioonid, kellega kontrollikoda Türgi visiidi ajal vestles.
The remaining two were in an impractically remote location. 
Ülejäänud kaks asusid liiga kaugel.
13 16 17 18 
13 16 17 18
OBSERVATIONS The Facility rapidly mobilised relevant support, but was not fully effective as a coordination mechanism We assessed the following: (a) Whether the Facility identified and addressed the main needs of refugees by means of a comprehensive and rigorous needs assessment; (b) Whether the FacilityŐs administrative arrangements allowed the Ű3 billion assistance to be contracted swiftly, i.e. during the period 2016-2017, as laid down in the CommissionŐs decision establishing the Facility; and (c) Whether the Facility effectively coordinated the assistance. 
TÄHELEPANEKUD Rahastu hankis kiiresti asjakohase abi, kuid ei olnud koordineerimismehhanismina täielikult tõhus Kontrollikoda hindas järgmist: a) kas rahastu selgitas välja ja rahuldas pagulaste põhivajadused põhjaliku ja hoolika vajaduste hindamise abil; b) kas rahastu halduslik korraldus võimaldas 3 miljardi euro ulatuses kiiresti (st ajavahemikul 2016–2017) lepinguid sõlmida, nagu on sätestatud komisjoni otsuses pagulasrahastu loomise kohta; ja c) kas rahastu koordineeris abi tõhusalt.
In particular, we examined whether the procedures in place for selecting and approving actions streamlined the assistance and ensured complementarity between: i) the different EU spending instruments used and, ii) humanitarian and non-humanitarian support. 
Eelkõige uuris kontrollikoda, kas meetmete valiku ja heakskiitmise menetlused aitasid abi ühtlustada ja tagasid vastastikuse täiendavuse: i) kasutatavate eri ELi rahastamisvahendite vahel ning ii) humanitaarabi ja muu abi vahel.
The Facility appropriately addressed the main needs of the refugees, except those needs related to municipal infrastructure and socio-economic support The allocation of Ű3 billion in funding was the result of a political decision agreed between EU Member States and Turkey. 
Rahastu aitas asjakohaselt täita pagulaste põhivajadusi, välja arvatud munitsipaaltaristu ja sotsiaal-majandusliku abi valdkonnas 3 miljardit eurot eraldati ELi liikmesriikide ja Türgi tehtud poliitilise otsuse tulemusena.
This amount represented a significant increase in the overall amount of assistance being made available by the EU in Turkey. 
See summa suurendas oluliselt üldist abi, mida EL Türgile võimaldas.
However, it did not aim to cover the whole cost of support for refugees19. 
Eesmärk polnud aga katta pagulaste abistamise kogumaksumus19.
14 19 
14 19
Even though the Turkish authorities were involved in the needs assessment, they did not officially endorse the exercise. 
hindamise20. Ehkki Türgi ametiasutused osalesid vajaduste hindamisel, ei kiitnud nad seda ametlikult heaks.
The needs assessment was finalised in June 2016. 
Vajaduste hindamine jõudis lõpule 2016. aasta juunis.
It was comprehensive, as it included an assessment of both humanitarian and development needs and provided relevant information on the situation of Syrian refugees, identifying gaps to be addressed taking into account past, ongoing and planned assistance to Syrian people under temporary protection (SuTP) in Turkey. 
Hindamine oli põhjalik, kuna see hõlmas nii humanitaarabi-kui ka arenguvajaduste hindamist, andis asjakohast teavet süürlastest pagulaste olukorra kohta ning aitas välja selgitada lahendamist vajavaid probleeme, võttes arvesse varasemat, praegu antavat ja kavandatavat abi ajutise kaitse all olevatele süürlastele Türgis.
However, it was not sufficiently rigorous: (a) Most of the numerical data (e.g. sector statistics) in the needs assessment was provided by the Turkish authorities. 
See polnud aga piisavalt põhjalik: a) suurem osa vajaduste hindamisel kasutatud arvandmetest (nt sektorite statistika) saadi Türgi ametiasutustelt.
The consultants who carried out the needs assessment were not able to access primary data. 
Vajaduste hindamist läbi viinud konsultantidel puudus juurdepääs algandmetele.
They could therefore not validate the estimated cost of the measures needed to address the needs of refugees and host communities. (b) There was a lack of up-to-date demographic information broken down by gender, age group and location and a lack of information on vulnerabilities (female-headed households, children, elderly people, etc.). 
Seepärast polnud neil võimalik kinnitada pagulaste ja vastuvõtvate kogukondade vajaduste täitmiseks vajalike meetmete eeldatavat maksumust; b) polnud piisavalt ajakohaseid demograafilisi andmeid, mis oleksid esitatud soo, vanuserühma ja asukoha kaupa, samuti puudus teave haavatavate rühmade kohta (majapidamised, kus perekonnapeaks on naine; lapsed; eakad jne).
The consultants described this as Őa serious hindrance to assessing needs and designing programmes and interventionsŐ. 
Konsultantide sõnul takistas see oluliselt vajaduste hindamist ning programmide ja sekkumiste kavandamist.
For example, in the sector of social support and cohesion, the latest nation-wide vulnerability assessment was from 2013. (c) The needs assessment targeted SuTP and did not address the needs of the non-Syrian refugee population (mainly Afghans and Iraqis). 
Näiteks sotsiaalabi ja ühtekuuluvuse sektoris tehti viimane kogu riiki hõlmav haavatavuse hindamine aastal 2013; c) vajaduste hindamisel keskenduti ajutise kaitse all olevatele süürlastele ning selles ei käsitletud muudest rahvustest pagulaste (peamiselt afgaanid ja iraaklased) vajadusi.
The vast majority of refugees in Turkey are SuTP (see paragraph 2); SuTP were therefore the primary target group supported under the Facility. 
Suurem osa Türgis asuvatest pagulastest on ajutise kaitse all olevad süürlased (vt punkt 2), mistõttu just nemad olid Türgi pagulasrahastu peamine sihtrühm.
Nevertheless, this was not in line with the stated aim of the Facility to address the needs of all refugees. 
See polnud aga kooskõlas rahastule määratud eesmärgiga aidata täita kõigi pagulaste vajadusi.
The priority areas of the Facility (see paragraph 8) were largely aligned with the needs assessment. 
Rahastu prioriteetsed valdkonnad (vt punkt 8) olid suures osas kooskõlas vajaduste hindamisega.
The only exception was Ômigration managementŐ which the Steering Committee selected as a priority area although it was not included in the scope of the needs assessment. 
Ainus erand oli rände haldamine, mille juhtkomitee valis prioriteetseks valdkonnaks, ehkki vajaduste hindamine seda ei hõlmanud.
Considering that the main objective of the Facility was to support refugees and host communities, and that migration management in Turkey had already been allocated about Ű350 million in support under the IPA (outside the Facility), the grounds for identifying it as a priority area are questionable. 
Pidades silmas asjaolu, et rahastu põhieesmärk oli toetada pagulasi ja neid vastu võtvaid kogukondi ning et Türgile oli 15 20 ELi–Türgi ühise tegevuskava punkt 3, 1. osa. juba ühinemiseelse abi rahastamisvahendi kaudu rände haldamiseks eraldatud umbes 350 miljonit eurot toetust (väljaspool pagulasrahastut), on selle valdkonna prioriteetseks liigitamine küsitav.
In fact, after having funded two migration-management projects, the Steering Committee decided not to allocate any more money to this area. 
Pärast kahe rändehaldamise projekti rahastamist otsustaski juhtkomitee selle valdkonna jaoks rohkem raha mitte eraldada.
The priority areas were broadly defined to ensure the necessary flexibility in a difficult and rapidly changing context. 
Prioriteetsed valdkonnad määratleti laialt, et tagada raskes ja kiiresti muutuvas olukorras vajalik paindlikkus.
The individual projects were aimed at addressing the specific needs of refugees. 
Projektide eesmärk oli täita pagulaste konkreetseid vajadusi.
We reviewed the rationale for the selection of the 10 audited projects and found that this was indeed the case for all of them (See Annex III B) for details). 
Kontrollikoda vaatas läbi kümne auditeeritava projekti valimise põhimõtted ja leidis, et see oli nende kõigi puhul nii (vt täpsemat teavet III B lisas).
When submitting a proposal for funding, the implementing partner of humanitarian projects must describe the problems, needs and risks identified and how the proposed response is adequate and consistent with the CommissionŐs overall humanitarian strategy in Turkey. 
Rahastamisettepanekut esitades peab humanitaarabiprojekte ellu viiv partner kirjeldama tuvastatud probleeme, vajadusi ja riske ning seda, kuivõrd on kavandatavad meetmed asjakohased ja kooskõlas komisjoni üldise humanitaarabi strateegiaga Türgis.
Box 1 shows how the EUŐs largest humanitarian project funded by the Facility addressed the needs of refugees. 
1. selgituses on näidatud, kuidas ELi suurim humanitaarabiprojekt, mida pagulasrahastust rahastati, aitas pagulaste vajadusi täita.
16 Box 1 Đ The ESSN: an innovative project design to address the needs of refugees The Emergency Social Safety Net (ESSN) is the largest-ever humanitarian project funded by the EU, aimed at providing assistance to 1.3 million refugees. 
16 1. selgitus. ESSN – uuendusliku ülesehitusega projekt pagulaste vajaduste täitmiseks Hädaolukorra sotsiaalkindlustusvõrk (Emergency Social Safety Net) on suurim ELi rahastatav humanitaarabiprojekt, mille eesmärk on anda abi 1,3 miljonile pagulasele.
The project is being implemented in two phases covering the periods from 2016-2018 and from 2018-2019, with a budget of Ű348 million and Ű650 million respectively. 
Projekt viiakse ellu kahes etapis perioodidel 2016–2018 ja 2018–2019 ning selle eelarve on vastavalt 348 miljonit ja 650 miljonit eurot.
The ESSN addresses basic needs (food, non-food items and services) by providing cash assistance. 
ESSN aitab täita esmavajadusi (toit, muud tooted ja teenused) rahaliste toetuste abil.
The project is implemented across Turkey by a UN Agency in collaboration with a local implementing partner and the Turkish authorities. 
Projekti viib kogu Türgis ellu üks ÜRO asutus koostöös rakenduspartneri ja Türgi ametiasutustega.
It is innovative because it is a hybrid humanitarian aid project embedded in the national social-protection system. 
See on uuenduslik, kuna tegu on riiklikku sotsiaalkaitsesüsteemi integreeritud humanitaarabiprojektiga.
Figure 1 Đ Proportion of the FacilityŐs assistance allocated to each priority area (based on contracted amounts) 17 In recent years, despite the perceived risk of misuse of funds, there has been a growing consensus amongst humanitarian stakeholders on the benefits of cash assistance21. 
Viimastel aastatel on humanitaarabi sidusrühmade hulgas rahaliste vahendite arvatavast väärkasutamise riskist hoolimata üha suurem üksmeel rahaliste toetuste eeliste osas21.
This was reflected at the World Humanitarian summit in June 2016, where cash transfers were promoted, when appropriate. 
See kajastus ülemaailmsel humanitaarabi teemalisel tippkohtumisel 2016. aasta juunis, kus propageeriti rahaliste toetuste kasutamist, kui see on asjakohane.
The project targets refugees living outside the camps, whose opportunities to enter the national labour market are limited. 
Projekt on suunatud väljaspool laagreid elavatele pagulastele, kelle võimalused riigi tööturul on piiratud.
It provides a stable and predictable source of income to cover their basic needs, mainly accommodation and food. 
Rändehaldus 3% Muu humanitaarabi 13% ESSN 34% Haridus 28% Tervishoid 15% Sotsiaal-majanduslik abi 7% 17 milleks on peamiselt majutus ja toit.
In practice, refugees receive a monthly fixed amount (about Ű30 per person). 
Praktikas saavad pagulased igas kuus fikseeritud summa (umbes 30 eurot inimese kohta).
They use a debit card to withdraw cash at ATMs or to pay in shops. 
Nad kasutavad pangaautomaatidest sularaha väljavõtmiseks või poodides ostude eest tasumiseks deebetkaarti.