natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
36 Recommendation 2 - Better ensuring the quality of ex-post reviews by defining minimum quality standards for all ex-post reviews (a) The Commission should define a set of minimum quality standards for ex-post reviews other than evaluations with a view to ensuring their quality across Commission services. (b) The Commission should grant the RSB, as an independent reviewer, the right to scrutinise ex-post reviews other than evaluations. (c) The Commission should incorporate in its minimum quality standards applicable to ex-post reviews with an evaluative element the requirement to include a detailed outline of the methodology used (i.e. including data collection and analysis tools), a justification of its choice, and the limitations. 
38 2. preporuka – Jamčenje bolje kvalitete ex post preispitivanja utvrđivanjem minimalnih standarda kvalitete za sva ex post preispitivanja (a) Komisija bi trebala utvrditi niz minimalnih standarda kvalitete za ex post preispitivanja koja nisu evaluacije kako bi se zajamčila njihova kvaliteta na razini svih službi Komisije. (b) Komisija bi Odboru za nadzor regulative, kao neovisnom ocjenjivaču, trebala odobriti pravo obavljanja nadzora nad ex post preispitivanjima koja nisu evaluacije. (c) Komisija bi u minimalne standarde kvalitete koji se primjenjuju na ex post preispitivanja s evaluacijskim elementom trebala unijeti obvezu da se u njih uključi detaljan prikaz primijenjene metodologije (uključujući alate za prikupljanje i analizu podataka), obrazloženje njezina odabira, kao i ograničenja.
Ex-post reviews generally publicly available; outcomes clear but not always used in ex-ante impact assessments 93. 
Ex post preispitivanja uglavnom su javno dostupna i imaju jasne rezultate, ali se pri izradi ex ante procjena učinka ponekad ne upotrebljavaju 93.
Virtually all ex-post reviews are publicly available and accessible. 
Gotovo sva ex post preispitivanja javno su dostupna.
The Commission’s reports have increased in clarity over the years, with the vast majority providing a clear conclusion and next steps (see paragraphs 64 to 68). 
Izvješća Komisije s godinama su postala sve jasnija te se u velikoj većini njih iznosi jasan zaključak i navode daljnji koraci (vidi odlomke 64. – 68.).
Regulatory quality is the responsibility of all three institutions involved in the legislative process. 
Odgovornost za kvalitetu propisa snose sve tri institucije uključene u zakonodavni postupak.
The Commission’s reports on the ex-post reviews carried out are systematically forwarded to the co-legislators but seldom produce a direct reaction to the Commission. 
Izvješća Komisije o ex post preispitivanjima koja se provode sustavno se prosljeđuju suzakonodavcima, ali na njih se rijetko dobiva izravna reakcija koja se upućuje Komisiji.
Nevertheless, co-legislators may use ex-post reviews within the broader policy cycle when the subject matter of an ex-post review is the subject of legislative reform or renewal (see paragraphs 69 to 70). 
Međutim, suzakonodavci se mogu služiti ex post preispitivanjima u okviru šireg ciklusa politika kada dođe do zakonodavne reforme ili izmjena onoga na što se predmetno ex post preispitivanje odnosilo (vidi odlomke 69. i 70.).
Despite recent improvement, the “evaluate first” principle is still not respected in around a quarter of cases. 
Unatoč napretku ostvarenom u posljednje vrijeme, načelo prethodne evaluacije i dalje se ne poštuje u otprilike četvrtini slučajeva.
When evaluations and impact assessments are carried out simultaneously (back-to-back), this raises doubts regarding the independence of the two processes and the effective consideration of the evaluation conclusions (see paragraphs 71 to 74). 
Ako se istodobno (usporedno) obavljaju i evaluacije i procjene učinka, dovodi se u pitanje neovisnost tih dvaju procesa i stvarno razmatranje zaključaka evaluacije (vidi odlomke 71. – 74.).
37 Recommendation 4 - Ensuring respect for the “Evaluate first” principle (a) The Commission should ensure that the “evaluate first” principle is systematically respected when revising existing legislation. 
4. preporuka – Obvezno poštovanje načela prethodne evaluacije (a) Komisija bi trebala zajamčiti da se pri mijenjanju postojećeg zakonodavstva sustavno poštuje načelo prethodne evaluacije.
Therefore, it should not validate a proposal the impact assessment of which is not based on previous evaluation work. (b) The Regulatory Scrutiny Board should pay due attention to effective application of this principle. 
Ciljni rok provedbe: lipanj 2019. (b) Odbor za nadzor regulative trebao bi pozorno pratiti djelotvornu primjenu tog načela.
It should publish annually a list of those impact assessments which do not respect the “evaluate first” principle. 
Svake bi godine trebao objaviti popis procjena učinka u kojima se nije poštovalo načelo prethodne evaluacije.
The REFIT programme is unclear 96. 
Program REFIT nije jasan 96.
The REFIT programme has been instrumental in promoting a Better Regulation mind-set across the Commission in order to improve the quality of legislation. 
Program REFIT imao je ključnu ulogu u promicanju stava kojim se teži postizanju bolje regulative na razini cijele Komisije u svrhu poboljšanja kvalitete zakonodavstva.
However, its rationale is unclear, as are the criteria by which individual initiatives have been labelled as REFIT. 
Međutim, taj program nema jasnu osnovu, a nisu jasni ni kriteriji prema kojima se pojedinačne inicijative uključuju u program REFIT.
At the same time, the toolbox presents REFIT as a specific programme. 
Istodobno, program REFIT predstavljen je u okviru paketa instrumenata kao poseban program.
This raises questions as to its current nature (see paragraphs 75 to 81). 
Zbog toga se dovodi u pitanje njegova trenutačna narav (vidi odlomke 75. – 81.).
38 Recommendation 5 - Mainstreaming REFIT into the Better Regulation cycle The Commission should clarify the REFIT concept and mainstream its presentation and use to avoid the perception that REFIT is in some way separate from the standard Better Regulation cycle. 
40 5. preporuka – Stavljanje programa REFIT u središte ciklusa bolje regulative Komisija bi trebala pojasniti koncept programa REFIT i staviti središnji naglasak na njegov sadržaj i uporabu kako bi se izbjegao dojam da je on na neki način odvojen od standardnog ciklusa bolje regulative.
This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mrs Iliana IVANOVA, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 16 May 2018. 
Ovo je izvješće usvojilo II. revizijsko vijeće, kojim predsjeda članica Revizorskog suda Iliana Ivanova, na sastanku održanom u Luxembourgu 16. svibnja 2018.
9 Evaluation “Evaluation of the Application of the mutual recognition principle in the field of goods” (June 2015) Back-to-back evaluation-IA (Mutual recognition) Ongoing Evaluation (Free movement of goods) Ongoing Evaluation SWD: Analysis of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 from 2013 to 2015 and factsheets (SWD(2016) 126) Commission report: Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 from 2013 to 2015 (COM(2016) 212) 1.6.2016 Report Commission report: Article 25 Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the impact of the procedures established by Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on European standardisation on the timeframe for issuing standardisation requests (COM(2015) 198) 13.5.2015 REFIT evaluation SWD: evaluation of the modifications introduced by Directive 2007/66/EC to Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC concerning the European framework for remedies in the area of public procurement/ refit evaluation (SWD(2017) 13) Commission report: Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the effectiveness of Directive 89/665/EEC and Directive 92/13/EEC, as modified by Directive 2007/66/EC, concerning review procedures in the area of public procurement (COM(2017) 28) Treated as ongoing because published after the deadline for the sample (24.1.2017) Evaluation SWD: Evaluation of Directive 2009/81/EC on public procurement in the fields of defence and security (SWD(2016) 407) 30.11.2016 
4. 5. 2015. 1 2 3 6 7
12 Evaluation The overall evaluation of the second generation Schengen Information System (9.5.2016) [limited] SIS technical assessment (5.2.2016) [limited] Commission report: “on the evaluation of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) in accordance with Articles 24(5), 43(3) and 50(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and art. 
4. 5. 9. 5. 3. 3. 3. 5. 6. 1 2 3 4 6 7
13 Evaluation on the application of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC) Final Report European Commission – DG Home Affairs (22 October 2013) Conformity check Tipik’s conformity check: Final Overall report on the transposition of Directive 2004/81/EC Study on Council Directive 2004/81/EC on the residence permit issued to victims of human trafficking and smuggled persons - Draft Final Report (February/March 2013) Commission communication: “On the application of Directive 2004/81 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities.” 
2013. 7. 1 2 3 4 6
17 Implementation report “One-year report on human medicines pharmacovigilance tasks of the European Medicines Agency”. 
5. Izvješće o provedbi „One-year report on human medicines pharmacovigilance tasks of the European Medicines Agency”. 1 2
19 Subject-specific report Study on the identification of potential risks to public health associated with the use of refillable electronic cigarettes and development of technical specifications for refill mechanisms (May 2016) Commission report on the potential risks to public health associated with the use of refillable electronic cigarettes (COM(2016) 269 final) 20.5.2016 
2016. 2016. 1. 1
3 Regulation (EU) No 653/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 as regards electronic identification of bovine animals and labelling of beef (Commission proposal: COM(2012) 639) Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on protective measures against pests of plants, amending Regulations (EU) No 228/2013, (EU) No 652/2014 and (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 69/464/EEC, 74/647/EEC, 93/85/EEC, 98/57/EC, 2000/29/EC, 2006/91/EC and 2007/33/EC (Commission proposal: COM(2013) 267 final) 
4. 2016. 5. 1. 2014. 9. Uredbe (EZ) br. Uredbe (EU) br. 6. 6. 1 2 3 4 6 7
In the European Parliament, the relevant committees take note of the Commission’s ex-post reviews and related reports. 
U Europskom parlamentu, nadležni odbori primaju na znanje ex post preispitivanja i povezana izvješća Komisije.
Each committee has an established internal process, where a decision is taken, usually at the level of the coordinators (the representatives of each political group in every committee), whether and how to provide a follow-up to them. 
Svaki odbor ima uspostavljen interni postupak kojim se donose odluke, obično na razini koordinatora (predstavnika klubova zastupnika u svakom odboru), o tome hoće li se na temelju tih dokumenata poduzimati daljnje mjere i koje će to mjere biti.
Within the European Parliament, the follow-up to such Commission documents can be given, inter alia, in the form of a debate in the coordinators meeting, as part of the structured dialogue of a committee with the relevant Commissioner, as an element of the debate when discussing new legislative proposals and voting on possible amendments, or by initiating a report on the implementation of a certain EU policy, legislation, or spending programme, or can constitute an important basis for a hearing or workshop organised by the relevant committee. 
Unutar Europskog parlamenta te daljnje mjere na temelju dokumenata Komisije mogu biti, među ostalim, u obliku rasprave na sastanku koordinatora, dio strukturiranog dijaloga odborâ s nadležnim povjerenicima, sastavni dio rasprave o novim zakonodavnim prijedlozima i glasovanja o eventualnim amandmanima, u obliku pripreme izvješća o provedbi neke politike, zakonodavstva ili programa potrošnje EU-a ili pak mogu predstavljati važan temelj za saslušanje ili radionicu koje organizira nadležni odbor.
The European Commission’s ex-post reviews/reports are also considered by the relevant services, namely the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, the Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union and the Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union when providing background research information to Members. 
Ex post preispitivanja/izvješća Komisije razmatraju i službe Parlamenta poput Glavne uprave za usluge parlamentarnih istraživanja, Glavne uprave za unutarnju politiku Unije i Glavne uprave za vanjsku politiku Unije prilikom analize konteksta za informacije koje pružaju zastupnicima.
Such background information is generally made publicly available on the European Parliament’s website (EP Think T ank). 
Te su analize konteksta obično javno dostupne na internetskoj stranici Europskog parlamenta (EP Think Tank).
The development of such guidelines within the European Parliament would need to leave Members the freedom of political choice in order to freely exercise their mandate. 
Pri izradi takvih smjernica unutar Europskog parlamenta zastupnicima bi se trebala ostaviti sloboda političkog izbora kako bi mogli slobodno obnašati svoju zastupničku dužnost.
The European Parliament has started to draw up this comprehensive Rolling Checklist, since such information did not exist before, at least in a form available to the Parliament. 
Europski parlament započeo je s izradom tog sveobuhvatnog kontrolnog popisa, s obzirom na to da te informacije ranije nisu postojale, odnosno barem ne u obliku dostupnom Parlamentu.
This publicly available document is mainly used by the committee secretariats in order to advise their Members on how to potentially prioritise committee work within the limited meeting time available. 
Tim se javno dostupnim dokumentom ponajprije služe tajništva odborâ kako bi zastupnike savjetovala o eventualnim prioritetima za rad odbora unutar ograničenog vremena koje je na raspolaganju za sastanke.
In the context of monitoring the transposition of EU law into national law, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have signed the Joint Political Declaration of 27 October 2011 of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on explanatory documents (OJ C 369/15 of 17 December 2011) and the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents (OJ C 369/14 of 17 December 2011). 
U pogledu praćenja prenošenja zakonodavstva Unije u nacionalno pravo, Europski parlament, Vijeće i Komisija potpisali su Zajedničku političku izjavu Europskog parlamenta, Vijeća i Komisije od 27. listopada 2011. o dokumentima s objašnjenjem (SL C 369/15 od 17. prosinca 2011.) i Zajedničku političku izjavu država članica i Komisije od 28. rujna 2011. o dokumentima s objašnjenjem (SL C 369/14 od 17. prosinca 2011.)
In order to monitor the implementation and application of legislation, it is also necessary to receive information on the transposition of EU law into national law. 
Radi praćenja provedbe i primjene zakonodavstva, potrebno je također primati informacije o prenošenju zakonodavstva EU-a u nacionalno pravo.
In the framework of the abovementioned joint political declarations, such information should be provided by the Member States to the Commission. 
Prema navedenim zajedničkim političkim izjavama, te informacije države članice trebale bi dostavljati Komisiji.
This information would also be useful for Parliament, since as a co-legislator it has an interest in knowing whether EU law is properly transposed into national law in order to allow it to develop its intended effects. 
Te bi informacije bile korisne i Parlamentu koji je kao suzakonodavac zainteresiran znati prenosi li se zakonodavstvo EU-a na odgovarajući način u nacionalno zakonodavstvo kako bi se omogućilo da se postigne ciljani učinak.
Such information could also provide an idea of where Member States might have gone in their transposition beyond that which is required by EU law. 
Na temelju takvih informacija mogao bi se dobiti i dojam o tome u kojim su područjima države članice eventualno napravile korak dalje u odnosu na razinu koju zahtijeva zakonodavstvo Unije.
Such background information is generally made publicly available on the European Parliament’s website (EP Think T ank). 
Te su analize konteksta obično javno dostupne na internetskoj stranici Europskog parlamenta (EP Think Tank ).
Recommendation 1 (a) - The need and feasibility of this Recommendation would clearly first need to be debated at the political level among the three institutions concerned. 
Preporuka 1 (a) Jasno je da bi potrebu za provedbom ove preporuke i njezinu izvedivost trebalo prvo raspraviti među trima predmetnim institucijama na političkoj razini.
According to the European Parliament committee’s political priorities, Commission reports on ex-post reviews will certainly be considered, either in the run up to legislative proposals being tabled, as they are tabled or otherwise at any point in the legislative cycle, possibly also in an internal committee process. 
U skladu s političkim prioritetima odbora Europskog parlamenta, izvješća Komisije o ex post preispitivanjima sigurno će se razmatrati, u razdoblju koje prethodi izradi zakonodavnih prijedloga, tijekom njihove izrade ili u bilo kojem trenutku u zakonodavnom ciklusu te eventualno i u okviru internih postupaka odborâ.
See also the reply to paragraph VII and 70. 
Vidi i odgovor na točke VII. i 70.
REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO THE SPECIAL REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS "EX-POST REVIEW OF EU LEGISLATION: A WELL-ESTABLISHED SYSTEM, BUT INCOMPLETE" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VI. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE NA TEMATSKO IZVJEŠĆE EUROPSKOG REVIZORSKOG SUDA „EX-POST PREISPITIVANJE ZAKONODAVSTVA EU-a: SUSTAV JE DOBRO USPOSTAVLJEN, ALI NEDOVRŠEN” SAŽETAK VI.
Since 2017, the Better Regulation Guidelines in tool 42 make clear reference to, and gives a short definition of, intermediate reports which may be inputs to evaluations. 
Od 2017. u Smjernicama za bolju regulativu pod instrumentom 42. jasno se upućuje na privremena izvješća koja mogu poslužiti kao osnova za evaluacije, te se navodi njihova kratka definicija.
Tool 43 contains Box 3 on 'Activities which need not necessarily be evaluated in the standard way'. 
Instrument 43. sadržava okvir 3. pod nazivom „Aktivnosti za koje se ne provodi nužno standardna evaluacija”.
The Guidelines make clear that while such work would not generally constitute an evaluation, it "should nonetheless broadly follow the concepts and principles of evaluation" and it should do so in a proportionate way. 
U Smjernicama se jasno navodi da se takva izvješća općenito ne smatraju evaluacijom, „ali se pri njihovoj izradi ipak trebaju poštovati temeljni koncepti i načela evaluacije” te primjenjivati proporcionalan pristup.
Where there are doubts about how such reports should be handled, Commission services should discuss the specific case with the Secretariat-General. 
U slučaju nedoumica u pogledu postupanja s takvim izvješćima službe Komisije trebale bi raspraviti konkretni slučaj s Glavnim tajništvom.
The Commission points out that REFIT has undergone an evolution since its launch in 2012 progressively enlarging its scope with the aim of increasing the strength and the visibility of the Commission efforts to identify and exploit opportunities for simplifying rules and reducing regulatory cost for businesses and citizens without compromising public policy objectives. 
Komisija napominje da se program REFIT od svojega pokretanja 2012. izmijenio, tj. njegovo se područje primjene postupno povećalo radi jačanja intenziteta i vidljivosti Komisijinih nastojanja da utvrdi i iskoristi prilike za pojednostavnjenje pravila i smanjenje regulatornih troškova za poduzeća i građane, a da se istodobno ne ugroze ciljevi javne politike.
Initially REFIT started with a mapping exercise to identify the regulatory areas and pieces of legislation with the greatest potential for this. 
REFIT je započeo postupkom mapiranja u cilju utvrđivanja regulatornih područja i zakonodavnih akata s najvećim potencijalom za ostvarenje navedenih ciljeva.
"REFIT" evaluations and fitness checks were thus launched in these areas with a view to making policy proposals. 
Stoga su u utvrđenim područjima pokrenute evaluacije i provjere primjerenosti u okviru programa „REFIT” u cilju donošenja prijedlogâ politike.
In 2015, REFIT was strengthened by creating the REFIT Platform to help to identify such cases. 
Program je 2015. ojačan uspostavom platforme REFIT, namijenjene lakšem utvrđivanju takvih slučajeva.
In the Commission Work Programme for 2017, on the basis of experience to date, it was announced that all revisions of existing legislation should examine whether the legislation is fit for purpose, and look at the scope for simplification and cost reduction. 
U Komisijinu programu rada za 2017. na temelju dosadašnjeg iskustva najavljeno je da bi se u svim revizijama postojećeg zakonodavstva trebalo ispitivati je li ono primjereno svojoj svrsi i postoje li mogućnosti za pojednostavnjenje i smanjenje troškova.
This approach is also explained in the Communication "Better solutions for Better results"1 of October 2017 and in the revised Better Regulation Guidelines of July 2017 (tool 2). 
Taj je pristup objašnjen i u Komunikaciji „Boljim rješenjima do boljih rezultata”1 iz listopada2017. te u revidiranim Smjernicama za bolju regulativu iz srpnja 2017. (instrument 2.).
The Commission considers that with the 2017 revision, the rationale of REFIT has been clarified and its scope extended to its natural breadth. 
Komisija smatra da je revizijom iz 2017. obrazložena namjena REFIT-a te je njegovo područje primjene dosegnulo svoje prirodne razmjere.
It considers that the programme continues to demonstrate added value, including by flagging the importance of considering simplification and burden reduction opportunities during the policy design stage, providing visibility to the Commission's efforts for regulatory simplification and burden reduction and facilitating the monitoring of their impact during the phases of legislative adoption and implementation. 
Njezino je stajalište da program i dalje ima dodanu vrijednost, među ostalim zato što se njime upozorava na važnost razmatranja mogućnosti pojednostavnjenja i smanjenja opterećenja već u fazi izrade politika, čine vidljivima Komisijina nastojanja u pogledu regulatornog pojednostavnjenja i smanjenja opterećenja te olakšava praćenje učinka tih nastojanja u fazama donošenja i provedbe zakonodavnih akata.
The Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better LawMaking confirms the importance the three institutions attach to REFIT. 
U Međuinstitucijskom sporazumu o boljoj izradi zakonodavstva potvrđuje se važnost koju tri institucije pridaju programu REFIT.
The Commission considers that additional elements of paragraph 22 and paragraph 23 of the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making are important such as: 1  avoiding overregulation and administrative burden in particular on Member States and  taking account of the time needed for implementation and for gathering evidence on results and impacts. 
Komisija smatra važnima dodatne elemente iz točaka 22. i 23. Međuinstitucijskog sporazuma o boljoj izradi zakonodavstva, primjerice sljedeće: 1  izbjegavanje prekomjernog nametanja propisa i administrativnih opterećenja, prije svega državama članicama te  uvažavanje vremena potrebnog za provedbu i prikupljanje dokaza o rezultatima i učincima.
COM(2017)651final. 1 
COM(2017)651final. 1
The Commission underlines that ex-post reviews are carried out for different purposes and are therefore often tailored to the specificities of the legislation. 
Komisija ističe da se ex-post preispitivanja provode u različite svrhe te su stoga često prilagođena posebnostima određenog zakonodavstva.