natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission agrees with the ECA that data availability could be improved. 
Komisija se slaže s Europskim revizorskim sudom da se dostupnost podataka može poboljšati.
However, the Commission considers that a balance has to be achieved between different types of indicators but there is no particular proportion of input and output indicators that automatically presents a weakness (see Commission reply to paragraph 3.23). 
Međutim, Komisija smatra da je potrebno postići ravnotežu među različitim vrstama pokazateljâ, ali ne postoji određeni omjer pokazateljâ uloženih sredstava i izlaznih proizvoda koji automatski predstavlja nedostatak (vidjeti odgovor Komisije na odlomak 3.23.).
The fact that progress cannot be calculated is linked to both the availability of the data and how the available data is used to calculate that progress (see Commission reply to paragraph 3.28). 
Činjenica da se napredak ne može izračunati povezana je s dostupnošću podataka i načinom na koji se raspoloživi podaci koriste za izračunavanje tog napretka (vidjeti odgovor Komisije na odlomak 3.28.).
While there might be unambitious targets on some indicators in some programmes, it is in most cases not straightforward to identify them (see Commission reply to paragraph 3.35). 
Iako u nekim programima mogu postojati neambiciozni ciljevi u pogledu nekih pokazatelja, u većini slučajeva nije ih lako identificirati (vidjeti odgovor Komisije u odlomku 3.35.).
8.10.2019 Official Journal of the European Union C 340/227 EN Recommendations Recommendation 3.1 (Indicators in the programme statements) The Commission accepts the recommendation. The Commission is required pursuant to the Financial Regulation to report in theProgramme Statements on all indicators set out in the legal bases of the spending programmes as agreed by the European Parliament and the Council based on proposals made by the Commission. a) The Commission considers that an appropriate balance between types of indicators is necessary to monitor and evaluate performance and this balance should reflect the specificities of individual programmes. 
Službeni list Europske unije C 340/227 HR Preporuke Preporuka 3.1. (Pokazatelji u programskim izvještajima) Komisija prihvaća preporuku. Komisija je u skladu s Financijskom uredbom dužna u programskim izvještajima izvijestiti o svim pokazateljima utvrđenima u pravnim osnovama programa, o kojima su se Europski parlament i Vijeće dogovorili na temelju prijedloga Komisije. (a) Komisija smatra da je za praćenje i evaluaciju uspješnosti potrebna odgovarajuća ravnoteža među vrstama pokazateljâ i ta bi ravnoteža trebala odražavati specifičnosti pojedinih programa.
Recommendation 3.2 (Performance frameworks for the programmes) The Commission accepts this recommendation. 
Preporuka 3.2. (Okviri uspješnosti za programe) Komisija prihvaća ovu preporuku.
The Commission notes that it will be necessary to use a limited number of indicators for which it is not meaningful to define quantitative baselines, milestones or targets. d) The Commission notes that it has to take account of feasibility and cost considerations as well as the fact that it requires a corresponding commitment of, in particular, Member States and beneficiaries to submitting high quality data on time. 
Komisija prima na znanje da će biti potrebno koristiti ograničeni broj pokazatelja za koje nije smisleno utvrditi kvantitativne polazne vrijednosti, ključne faze ili ciljeve. (d) Komisija prima na znanje da u obzir mora uzeti izvedivost i troškove te činjenicu da to zahtijeva odgovarajuću obvezu, posebno država članica i korisnika, da pravovremeno dostave podatke visoke kvalitete.
Recommendation 3.3 (Timely information for the performance indicators) The Commission accepts the recommendation. 
Preporuka 3.3. (Pravovremene informacije za pokazatelje uspješnosti) Komisija prihvaća preporuku.
The Commission notes that it has to take account of feasibility and cost considerations as well as the fact that it requires a corresponding commitment of, in particular, Member States and beneficiaries to submitting high quality data on time. 
Komisija prima na znanje da u obzir mora uzeti izvedivost i troškove te činjenicu da to zahtijeva odgovarajuću obvezu, posebno država članica i korisnika, da pravovremeno dostave podatke visoke kvalitete.
Recommendation 3.4 (Documentation of targets) The Commission accepts the recommendation. 
Preporuka 3.4. (Dokumentacija ciljeva) Komisija prihvaća preporuku.
Recommendation 3.5 (Improvement of the Programmes’ Performance Overview) The Commission accepts the recommendation. a) The Commission considers that it will be able to implement this part of the recommendation only at the start of the MFF 2021-2027. 
Preporuka 3.5. (Poboljšanje pregleda uspješnosti programâ) Komisija prihvaća preporuku. (a) Komisija smatra da će ovaj dio preporuke moći provesti tek na početku VFO-a za razdoblje 2021.–2027.
Annex 3.3 — Detailed status of 2015 recommendations by report Special report 01/2015: Inland Waterway Transport in Europe - No significant improvements in modal share and navigability conditions since 2001 Reply to paragraph 52, recommendation 1(a): The Commission notes that this recommendation was addressed to the Member States. 
Prilog 3.3. — Podatci o statusu preporuka za 2015. prikazani po izvješćima Tematsko izvješće br. 1/2015: „Prijevoz unutarnjim plovnim putovima u Europi: od 2001. godine nema znatnih poboljšanja ni u pogledu modalnog udjela ni u pogledu uvjeta plovnosti” Odgovor na odlomak 52. preporuku br.
Reply to paragraph 54, recommendation 2 (a): The Commission took the actions that were possible within the timeframe defined for the implementation of the recommendation and considers it as implemented. 
2 (a): Komisija je poduzela mjere koje su bile moguće unutar vremenskog okvira utvrđenog za provedbu preporuke i smatra je provedenom.
It examined the situation of the inland navigation sector by means of a dedicated Market Observation analysis. 
Ispitala je situaciju u sektoru unutarnje plovidbe s pomoću namjenske analize praćenja tržišta.
The revision of the strategy itself will occur in the more general context of the revision of the TEN-T framework (see recommendation 2c below). 
Do revizije same strategije doći će u širem kontekstu revizije okvira programa TEN-T (vidjeti preporuku 2.c u nastavku).
Reply to paragraph 54, recommendation 2 (c): This action will be completed with the revision of the TEN-T Regulation foreseen by 31 December 2023. 
2 (c): Ta će mjera završiti revizijom Uredbe o mreži TEN-T, koja je predviđena do 31. prosinca 2023.
Special report 02/2015: EU-funding of Urban Waste Water Treatment plants in the Danube river basin – further efforts needed in helping Member States to achieve EU waste water policy objectives Reply to paragraph 108, recommendation 1 (a): The Commission did not accept this recommendation. 
Tematsko izvješće br. 2/2015: „Financijska potpora EU-a uređajima za pročišćavanje komunalnih otpadnih voda u dunavskom slijevu: nužnost dodatnih napora u pomoći državama članicama da ostvare ciljeve politike otpadnih voda EU-a” Odgovor na odlomak 108. preporuku br.
Reply to paragraph 110, recommendation 2 (a): The Commission fully implemented the part of recommendation 2(a) that it accepted. 
2 (a): Komisija je u potpunosti provela dio preporuke br. 2 (a) koji je prihvatila.
For most of the waste water load (all agglomerations above 2 000 p.e.) financial information is reported. 
Za većinu opterećenja otpadnih voda (sve aglomeracije više od 2 000 ES) dostavljaju se financijske informacije.
Only agglomerations below 2 000 p.e. do not report. 
Ne izvješćuju samo aglomeracije čiji je ES manji od 2 000.
The reasons for this are the following: a) unjustifiable additional administrative burden, b) would increase delays in reporting (ECA recommends elsewhere reducing the delay in reporting), c) no explicit reporting obligation in the Directive. C 340/228 Official Journal of the European Union 8.10.2019 EN Reply to paragraph 115, recommendation 3 (a): The Commission did not accept this recommendation. 
Razlozi su za to sljedeći: a) neopravdano dodatno administrativno opterećenje, b) povećalo bi se kašnjenje u izvješćivanju (Europski revizorski sud na drugom mjestu preporučuje smanjenje kašnjenja u izvješćivanju), c) u Direktivi nema izričite obveze izvješćivanja. C 340/228 Službeni list Europske unije 8.10.2019.
Reply to paragraph 115, recommendation 3 (b): The Commission did not accept this recommendation. Reply to paragraph 115, recommendation 3 (c): The Commission considers this recommendation fully implemented. 
Odgovor na odlomak 115. preporuku br. 3: Komisija nije prihvatila ovu preporuku. 3 (c): Komisija preporuku smatra u cijelosti provedenom.
Reply to paragraph 115, recommendation 3 (d): The Commission considers this recommendation fully implemented. 
Odgovor na odlomak 115. preporuku br. 3 (d): Komisija preporuku smatra u cijelosti provedenom.
The Commission has taken the recommended action. 
Komisija je poduzela preporučene mjere.
The latter sets out a model for reporting on financial instruments. 
Potonjim se utvrđuje model za izvješćivanje o financijskim instrumentima.
In section VIII of the reporting model the Member States have to provide information on the amount of other contributions, outside European Structural and Investment Funds raised by financial instruments, including public and/or private contributions, both committed in the funding agreements and paid at the level of final recipients. 
U odjeljku VIII. modela izvješćivanja države članice trebaju dostaviti podatke o iznosu drugih doprinosa izvan europskih strukturnih i investicijskih fondova prikupljenih financijskim instrumentima, uključujući javne i/ili privatne doprinose, odobrene u sporazumima o financiranju i plaćene na razini krajnjih primatelja.
Reply to paragraph 117, recommendation 4 (a): The Commission did not accept this recommendation. 
Odgovor na odlomak 117. preporuku br. 4 (a): Komisija nije prihvatila ovu preporuku.
Reply to paragraph 117, recommendation 4 (b): This recommendation is partially implemented. 
Odgovor na odlomak 117. preporuku br. 4 (b): Ova je preporuka djelomično provedena.
Reply to paragraph 119, recommendation 5 (b): The Commission did not accept this recommendation. 
Odgovor na odlomak 119. preporuku br. 5 (b): Komisija nije prihvatila ovu preporuku.
Special report 03/2015: EU Youth Guarantee - first steps taken but implementation risks ahead Reply to paragraph 89, recommendation 1: This recommendation is addressed to the Member States. 
3/2015: „Jamstvo za mlade EU-a: poduzeti su prvi koraci, no rizici u provedbi tek predstoje” Odgovor na odlomak 89. preporuku br. 1: Ova preporuka upućena je državama članicama.
Special report 04/2015: Technical assistance - what contribution has it made to agriculture and rural development? Reply to paragraph 90, recommendation 1: The Commission considers the recommendation as fully implemented. 
4/2015: „Tehnička pomoć: koji je njezin doprinos poljoprivredi i ruralnom razvoju?” Odgovor na odlomak 90. preporuku br. 1: Komisija preporuku smatra u cijelosti provedenom.
Under the principle of shared management, Member States describe in their Rural Development Programmes how technical assistance will be used and are in the position to provide an overall assessment of how it is implemented. 
U okviru načela podijeljenog upravljanja, države članice u svojim programima ruralnog razvoja opisuju kako će se koristiti tehnička pomoć i u položaju su pružiti ukupnu procjenu toga kako se ona provodi.
Furthermore, it should be underlined that monitoring indicators only provide a part of the information needed for evaluation and that evaluation goes well beyond the data analysis of the monitoring tables. 
Nadalje, treba naglasiti da pokazatelji praćenja daju samo dio informacija potrebnih za evaluaciju i da evaluacija nadilazi analizu podataka iz tablica za praćenje.
The ex-post evaluation of the Rural Development Programmes is expected to be prepared and submitted to the Commission by December 2024. 
Očekuje se da će izvješće o ex post evaluaciji programâ ruralnog razvoja biti sastavljeno i podneseno Komisiji do prosinca 2024.
Reply to paragraph 90, recommendation 2: The Commission did not accept this recommendation. 
Odgovor na odlomak 90. preporuku br.
Reply to paragraph 93, recommendation 4: The Commission considers the recommendation as fully implemented. Monitoring Table B2.3 distinguishes for Technical Assistance support - other than National Rural Network – the total public expenditure for administrative costs and other costs, the latter including studies and training. 
4: Komisija preporuku smatra u cijelosti provedenom. U tablici za praćenje B2.3. u pogledu potpore za tehničku pomoć – osim nacionalne ruralne mreže – razlikuju se ukupni javni rashodi za administrativne troškove i drugi troškovi, pri čemu potonji uključuju studije i izobrazbu.
As a general principle, the definition of additional indicators to be collected by Member States and Regions has to keep the right balance between the added value on one hand and the administrative burden on the other. 
Opće je načelo da definicija dodatnih pokazatelja koje trebaju prikupiti države članice i regije mora održavati pravu ravnotežu između dodane vrijednosti s jedne strane i administrativnog opterećenja s druge strane.
This is the reason why the amount of detailed information collected at this level is intentionally kept limited. 
Zbog toga je količina detaljnih informacija prikupljenih na ovoj razini namjerno ograničena.
The Commission is not in the position to provide ex-ante evidence on the eventual outcomes of the evaluation questions. 
Komisija nije u mogućnosti pružiti ex ante dokaze o konačnim ishodima evaluacijskih pitanja.
Under shared management, the evaluation of the rural development programmes is done at the level of the Member States or Regions in accordance with the common evaluation approach as laid down in Article 14 of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 808/2014. 
U okviru podijeljenog upravljanja evaluacija programâ ruralnog razvoja provodi se na razini država članica ili regija u skladu sa zajedničkim pristupom evaluaciji kako je utvrđeno u članku 14. Provedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) br. 808/2014.
8.10.2019 Official Journal of the European Union C 340/229 EN Special report 05/2015: Are financial instruments a successful and promising tool in the rural development area? 
Službeni list Europske unije C 340/229 HR Tematsko izvješće br. 5/2015: „Jesu li financijski instrumenti djelotvorno i perspektivno sredstvo u području ruralnog razvoja?”
Reply to paragraph 100, recommendation 3: The co-legislators have not provided legal requirements for setting up targets for revolving effects. 
Odgovor na odlomak 100. preporuku br. 3: Suzakonodavci nisu osigurali zakonske uvjete u pogledu postavljanja ciljeva za učinak obnovljivosti.
The reason for that is that the revolving nature associated with every financial instrument is specific to each instruments and its design. 
Razlog tome je činjenica da je obnovljivost koja se povezuje sa svakim financijskim instrumentom specifična za svaki pojedini instrument i njegovu strukturu.
It also depends on external factors such as market demand and economic development. 
Ona ovisi i o vanjskim čimbenicima kao što su potrebe tržišta i gospodarski razvoj.
Similarly, the Commission only provided additional implementing rules related to revolving in its implementing Regulations (EU) No 964/2014 and (EU) 2016/1157, placed in the sections on lending policy. 
Slično tomu, Komisija je u odjeljcima o kreditnoj politici svojih provedbenih uredbi (EU) br. 964/2014 i (EU) 2016/1157 pružila samo dodatna pravila provedbe koja se odnose na obnovljivost.
The legal framework and implementing rules can only provide principles for setting the targets and for the management of resources paid back. 
Pravnim okvirom i pravilima provedbe mogu se samo utvrditi načela za utvrđivanje ciljeva i za upravljanje vraćenim sredstvima.
In particular, the target lending volume and range of interest rate cannot be set at the EU level ex-ante with pre-defined targets. 
Konkretno, ciljni obujam kreditiranja i raspon kamatne stope ne mogu se utvrditi na razini EU-a ex ante s unaprijed utvrđenim ciljevima.
It can only be assessed case by case within the ex-ante assessment of each financial instrument (in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013) and shall be taken into account to determine the nature of the instrument (revolving ornon-revolving instrument). 
Može ih se procijeniti samo na pojedinačnoj osnovi u okviru ex ante procjene svakog financijskog instrumenta (u skladu s člankom 37. Uredbe (EU) br.
The aspect of leverage also has to be examined during the ex-ante assessment process. 
Tijekom postupka ex ante procjenjivanja mora se ispitati i aspekt financijske poluge.
Resources paid back to financial instrument shall be either reused within the same financial instrument (revolving within the same financial instrument) or after being paid back to managing authority or fund of funds they shall be used in accordance with Article 44 (for the same objective set under a priority before the end of the eligibility period) and Article 45 (in accordance with the aim of the programme after the end of the eligibility period) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
Sredstva vraćena financijskom instrumentu ponovno se upotrebljavaju u okviru istog financijskog instrumenta (obnavljaju se u okviru istog financijskog instrumenta) ili se nakon vraćanja upravljačkom tijelu ili fondu fondova upotrebljavaju u skladu s člancima 44. (za isti cilj utvrđen u okviru prioriteta prije kraja razdoblja prihvatljivosti) i 45. (u skladu s ciljem programa nakon završetka razdoblja prihvatljivosti) Uredbe (EU) br. 1303/2013.
With these provisions as amended in the Omnibus Regulation (Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046) the Commission considers the recommendation as implemented, with the exception of the targets that can only be defined in the ex-ante assessment of each financial instruments and cannot be set horizontally by the Commission. 
Na temelju ovih odredbi, kako su izmijenjene u Uredbi Omnibus (Uredba (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046), Komisija smatra da je preporuka provedena, s izuzetkom ciljeva koji se mogu utvrditi samo u ex ante procjeni svakog financijskog instrumenta i Komisija ih ne može postaviti horizontalno.
Special report 08/2015: Is EU financial support adequately addressing the needs of micro-enterprises? 
8/2015: „Pružaju li se financijskom potporom EU-a odgovarajuća rješenja za potrebe mikropoduzetnika?”
Reply to paragraph 68, recommendation 1: Concerning the still remaining weakness mentioned by the ECA in Annex 3.4, it should be noted that to include specific indicators in an OP is optional for Managing authorities. 
1: Kad je riječ o još uvijek prisutnom nedostatku koji je Revizorski sud naveo u Prilogu 3.4., treba napomenuti da uključivanje posebnih pokazatelja u operativni program nije obvezno za upravljačka tijela.
However, the regulation foresees a mandatory common output indicator for entities (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013, Annex I (2)). 
Međutim, uredbom se predviđa obvezni zajednički pokazatelj ostvarenja za subjekte (Uredba (EU) br.
Reply to paragraph 72, recommendation 4: The Commission did not accept this recommendation. 
4: Komisija nije prihvatila ovu preporuku. Tematsko izvješće br.
Special report 09/2015: EU support for the fight against torture and the abolition of the death penalty Reply to paragraph 55, recommendation 4: While agreeing with the ECA’s conclusion that this recommendation has not been implemented, the Commission reiterates that it does not accept the recommendation. 
9/2015: „Potpora Europske unije borbi protiv mučenja i ukidanju smrtne kazne” Odgovor na odlomak 55. preporuku br. 4: Iako se slaže sa zaključkom Revizorskog suda da ova preporuka nije provedena, Komisija ponavlja da ne prihvaća preporuku.
Reply to paragraph 56, recommendation 6: While agreeing with the ECA’s conclusion that this recommendation has not been implemented, the Commission reiterates that it does not accept the recommendation. 
6: Iako se slaže sa zaključkom Revizorskog suda da ova preporuka nije provedena, Komisija ponavlja da ne prihvaća preporuku.
Special report 12/2015: The EU priority of promoting a knowledge-based rural economy has been affected by poor management of knowledge-transfer and advisory measures Reply to paragraph 94, recommendation 1(b): The recommendation by ECA is considered as fully implemented. 
Tematsko izvješće br. 12/2015: „Na ostvarivanje prioriteta EU-a u vezi s promicanjem ruralnog gospodarstva utemeljenog na znanju utječe neodgovarajuće upravljanje mjerama prijenosa znanja i savjetovanja” Odgovor na odlomak 94. preporuku br.
There are different methodologies to conduct a recurrent analysis of training needs and the most appropriate approach depends on the design of the respective Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS), which varies by Member State. 
Postoje različite metodologije za provođenje učestalih analiza potrebâ za izobrazbom, a najprikladniji pristup ovisi o izradi odgovarajućeg sustava znanja i inovacijâ u poljoprivredi (AKIS), koji se razlikuje u pojedinim državama članicama.
Therefore, the Measure Fiche can only describe in general terms the most efficient way of conducting such a needs assessment. 
Stoga se dokumentom o mjeri može samo općenito opisati najučinkovitiji način provođenja takve procjene potrebâ.
The update to the Measure Fiche as implemented by the Commission is considered to provide the appropriate degree of detail and to be sufficient to guide Member States to conduct a recurrent needs-assessment. 
Smatra se da se ažuriranjem dokumenta o mjerama kako ga provodi Komisija pruža odgovarajuća razina pojedinosti i da je ono dostatno za usmjeravanje država članica u provođenju učestalih procjena potreba.
Reply to paragraph 94, recommendation 1(d): The recommendation by ECA is considered as fully implemented. 
1 (d): Preporuka Europskog revizorskog suda smatra se u cijelosti provedenom.
All rural development measures are only approved to be added in the Rural Development Programmes if a Member State demonstrates an underlying strategic need. 
U programe ruralnog razvoja odobreno je dodati sve mjere ruralnog razvoja samo ako država članica pokaže temeljnu stratešku potrebu.
That need would be evident from the Rural Development Programme strategy which in turn is based on the SWOT analysis and the resulting needs assessment each Member State had to conduct at the outset of the Rural Development Programming phase. 
Ta bi potreba bila vidljiva iz strategije Programa ruralnog razvoja koja se pak temelji na SWOT analizi i iz nje nastaloj procjeni potreba koje je svaka država članica trebala provesti u početnoj fazi programa ruralnog razvoja.
C 340/230 Official Journal of the European Union 8.10.2019 EN In the Annual Review Meetings and Monitoring Committees the ‘Annual Implementation Reports (AIR)’ are assessed, which report on the implementation progress of all programmed measures of the Rural Development Programmes. 
C 340/230 Službeni list Europske unije 8.10.2019. HR Na godišnjim preglednim sastancima i sastancima odbora za praćenje ocjenjuju se „godišnja izvješća o provedbi”, u kojima se izvješćuje o napretku u provedbi svih programskih mjera programâ ruralnog razvoja.
In case of implementation difficulties or delays, the situation is analysed and remedial action is sought. 
U slučaju poteškoća ili kašnjenja u provedbi, situacija se analizira i traže se korektivne mjere.
Reply to paragraph 96, recommendation 2(b): The recommendation by ECA concerning the guidance documents and public procurement including information on in-house delivery is considered as fully implemented. 
2 (b): Preporuka Revizorskog suda u vezi s dokumentima sa smjernicama i javnom nabavom, uključujući informacije o internom pružanju usluga, smatra se u cijelosti provedenom.
Reply to paragraph 98, recommendation 3(a): The recommendation by ECA is considered as fully implemented. 
3 (a): Preporuka Europskog revizorskog suda smatra se u cijelosti provedenom.