natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
annex i comParison of sPecific elements of the commission’s system with ia systems elsewhere 51 The Netherlands Legislative proposals* Other non-regulatory initiatives Clear threshold for applying IA to new regulatory proposals* Benefits: quantitative assessment* Use of Standard Cost Model (SCM) for administrative burden* * Sources: OECD, ‘Indicators of regulatory management systems’, Regulatory Policy Committee, 2009 report; additional ECA country analysis. 
príloha i porovnanie konkrétnych prvkov systému komisie so systémami hodnotenia vplyvu inde 51 Holandsko Legislatívne návrhy* Pri dôležitých regulačných opatreniach Iné neregulačné iniciatívy Jasné prahové hodnoty na uplatňovanie hodnotení vplyvu pri nových regulačných návrhoch* * Zdroje: OECD, Indicators of Regulatory Management Systems (Ukazovatele regulačného systému riadenia), výbor pre regulačnú politiku, správa za rok 2009; dodatočné analýzy Európskeho dvora audítorov podľa krajín.
No Yes United Kingdom Yes Yes United States (federal level) Scope of IA system For major regulation Always No Implementing measures* For major regulation Always For major regulation No Yes No Yes Analysis of impacts Integrated approach to economic, social and environmental impacts No No No Cost: quantitative assessment* Always Always For major regulation Always Always For major regulation No Quality control body External to the administration Can prompt IA work Yes (only admin. burden) Yes (only admin. burden) No No No Yes Can block regulatory proposals* No Yes Yes Publication of IA work List of forthcoming IAs No Always Always Interim IA documents No Always Always Final IA reports In some cases Always Always Ex post comparisons of the actual vs predicted impacts of regulations* No Yes Yes special report no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making? 
Spojené kráľovstvo Vždy Spojené štáty americké (federálna úroveň) Rozsah systému hodnotenia vplyvu Nie Vykonávacie opatrenia* Pri dôležitých regulačných opatreniach Vždy Pri dôležitých regulačných opatreniach Nie Áno Nie Nie Áno Áno Analýza vplyvov Integrovaný prístup k hospodárskym, sociálnym a environmentálnym vplyvom Nie Nie Nie Náklady: kvantitatívne hodnotenie* Vždy Vždy Pri dôležitých regulačných opatreniach Prínosy: kvantitatívne hodnotenie* Vždy Vždy Pri dôležitých regulačných opatreniach Používanie štandardných modelov nákladov pri administratívnej záťaži* Áno Áno Nie Orgán kontroly kvality Nezávislý od administratívy Môže urýchliť prácu v súvislosti s hodnotením vplyvu Áno (len pri administratívnej záťaži) Áno (len pri administratívnej záťaži) Nie Nie Nie Áno Môže zablokovať regulačné návrhy* Nie Áno Áno Uverejňovanie práce v súvislosti s hodnotením vplyvu Zoznam pripravovaných hodnotení vplyvu Nie Vždy Vždy Priebežné dokumenty o hodnotení vplyvu Nie Vždy Vždy Záverečné správy o hodnotení vplyvu V niektorých prípadoch Vždy Vždy Následné porovnanie skutočných a predpokladaných vplyvov regulačných opatrení* Nie Áno Áno Osobitná správa č.
52 annex ii audit aPProach and evidence collection methods identifyinG the audit subject and PlanninG the audit fieldwork 1. the european court of auditors identified in november 2007, in its annual work programme for 2008, the ‘Better regulation’ programme and impact assessments as a relevant audit subject1. 
52 príloha ii audítorský prístup a metódy zBeru dôkazov stanovenie predmetu auditu a plánovanie audítorskej práce v teréne 1. V novembri 2007 Európsky dvor audítorov rozhodol vo svojom ročnom pláne práce na rok 2008, že program lepšia právna regulácia a hodnotenia vplyvu sú relevantným predmetom auditu1.
In may and june 2008 a preliminary study was conducted which determined the scope of this audit. the audit fieldwork was carried out between october 2008 and july 2009, based on a specific audit planning memorandum and evidence collection plan. overview of evidence collection methods utilised durinG the audit 2. 
V máji a júni 2008 sa vypracovala predbežná štúdia, v ktorej sa stanovil rozsah tohto auditu. Audítorská práca v teréne sa uskutočnila v rozmedzí od októbra 2008 do júla 2009 na základe špecifického memoranda o plánovaní auditu a plánu na zber dôkazov. prehľad metód zBeru dôkazov použitých počas auditu 2.
First, the audit team reviewed relevant policy decisions, applicable guidelines of the european institutions (commission, ep, council), the oecd, the member states and countries outside the eU (Usa, australia), previous evaluations of the commission’s Ia system2, studies and academic literature in the fields of ‘Better regulation’ and regulatory impact analysis3 and participated in conferences related to the subject4. 
Audítorský tím najprv preštudoval príslušné rozhodnutia o politike, platné usmernenia európskych inštitúcií (Komisie, Európskeho parlamentu, Rady), OEcD, členských štátov a krajín mimo Eú (Spojené štáty americké, Austrália), doterajšie posúdenia systému hodnotení vplyvu Komisie2, štúdie a akademickú literatúru v oblastiach „lepšej právnej regulácie“ a analýzy vplyvu regulácie3 a zúčastnil sa na konferenciách zameraných na túto oblasť4.
3. moreover, the audit work comprised the following five work packages: — a comparison of the commission’s Ia system with systems elsewhere (wp 1); — a quantitative analysis of the extent to which commission initiatives during the period audited had been subject to Ia, and how these Ias had been used by the european parliament and the council during the legislative procedure (wp 2); — a ‘scorecard’ analysis of a sample of Ia reports to verify whether the commission had carried out its assessments in accordance with its own internal procedures and methodological guidance, together with an ‘in-depth’ review of a sample of Ia reports (wp 3); — enquiries with people involved in performing, reviewing and using the commission’s Ias both within and outside the commission (wp 4); and — surveys among members of council working parties and the directors and experts of Better regulation (wp 5). 4. detailed information on the content of the five work packages is provided hereafter. special report no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making? 
Audítorská práca okrem toho zahŕňala týchto päť balíkov pracovných činností: — porovnanie systému hodnotenia vplyvu Komisie so systémami používanými inde (balík činností 1); — kvantitatívna analýza rozsahu, v ktorom boli iniciatívy Komisie počas kontrolovaného obdobia predmetom hodnotení vplyvu, a ako Európsky parlament a Rada využili tieto hodnotenia počas legislatívneho procesu (balík činností 2); — analýza vzorky správ o hodnotení vplyvu pomocou hodnotiacej tabuľky na overenie, či Komisia vykonávala svoje hodnotenia v súlade so svojimi vnútornými postupmi a metodologickým usmernením, a hĺbkové preskúmanie vzorky správ o hodnotení vplyvu (balík činností 3), — rozhovory s osobami zainteresovanými vo vypracúvaní, preskúmavaní a využívaní hodnotení vplyvu Komisie v rámci, aj mimo nej (balík činností 4), — prieskumy medzi členmi pracovných skupín Rady a riaditeľmi a expertmi v oblasti lepšej regulácie (balík činností 5). 4.
53 annex ii wp 1 — international comparison specific aspects of the commission’s Ia system were compared to approaches followed elsewhere on the basis of publicly available documentation (such as oecd documen-tation5, academic literature and comparative studies by bodies responsible for ‘better regulation’ in the member states6 or cofunded by the european commission7. corroborative evidence was gained through country visits to the Usa and seven eU member states (Belgium, Germany, France, the netherlands, portugal, sweden and the United Kingdom). wp 2 — quantitative analysis an analysis of the coverage of the commission’s Ia system as a whole to verify to what extent impact assessments were applied to commission initiatives published during the period audited and the items contained in the cLwps. 
3/2010 – Hodnotenia vplyvu inštitúcií Eú: podporujú proces rozhodovania? 53 príloha ii baLík činností 1: medzinárodné porovnanie Osobitné aspekty systému hodnotenia vplyvu Komisie sa porovnali s prístupmi inde na základe verejne dostupných dokumentov (napríklad dokumentácie OEcD5, akademickej literatúry a komparatívnych štúdií orgánov zodpovedajúcich za lepšiu právnu reguláciu v členských štátoch6 alebo spolufinancovaných Európskou komisiou7).
For this purpose, a database of almost 5 000 commission initiatives was established and analysed. the audit team also assessed the extent to which the ep and the council used the commission’s Ias, on the basis of the publicly available documentation of the two institutions (such as meeting agendas, minutes, references in resolutions, etc.). moreover, the audit comprised a comparative analysis of the scope and number of Ias and retrospective evaluations undertaken in 2008. wp 3 — ‘scorecard’ analysis and ‘in-depth’ review the ‘scorecard analysis’ was carried out for all Ia reports produced by five directorates-general: energy and transport (dG tren)8; regional policy (dG reGIo); employment, social affairs and equal opportunities (dG empL); research (dG rtd); Information society and media (dG InFso). this corresponds to 115 (out of a total of 404) Ia reports published between 2003 and 2008. the scorecard was established on the basis of the commission’s Ia guidelines, and took account of the requirements applicable at the date of publication of the Ia report9. the checklists used by the United Kingdom nao in a similar exercise related to the United Kingdom impact assessment system10 and those used by a previous evaluation of the commission’s Ia system11 were taken into consideration for the preparation of the score-card. 
Na tento účel sa vytvorila a analyzovala databáza takmer 5 000 iniciatív Komisie. Audítorský tím takisto posúdil, v akom rozsahu EP a Rada využívali hodnotenia vplyvu Komisie, na základe verejne dostupných dokumentov v týchto dvoch inštitúciách (napr. programy zasadnutí, zápisnice, odkazy v uzneseniach atď.).
Further questions such as certain aspects related to the Impact assessment Board’s quality control were added. 
Pridali sa ďalšie otázky, ktoré sa týkali napríklad aspektov kontrol kvality vykonávaných radou pre hodnotenie vplyvu.
In addition, an in-depth review was carried out to observe the complete life-cycle from the legislative proposal to the monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes. the sample included not only recent cases (in particular to assess the IaB’s role), but also reports dating back two years or more. 
Okrem toho sa vykonalo hĺbkové preskúmanie celého cyklu od legislatívneho návrhu až po monitorovanie a hodnotenie politík a programov.
It included both reports for proposals with and without budgetary implications and Ias related to directly applicable legislative proposals (decisions and regulations) and those requiring transposition and implementation in the member states (directives)12. some additional cases from outside the remit of the five dGs in the sample were included in this review to obtain a corroborative view on the situation across the commission as a whole. special report no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making? 
Vzorka obsahovala nielen nedávne prípady (najmä s cieľom posúdiť úlohu rady pre hodnotenie vplyvu), ale aj správy spred dvoch alebo viacerých rokov. zahrňovala správy týkajúce sa návrhov s rozpočtovými dôsledkami aj bez nich a hodnotenia vplyvu v súvislosti s priamo uplatňovanými legislatívnymi návrhmi (rozhodnutia a nariadenia), ako aj s návrhmi, pri ktorých je potrebná transpozícia a implementácia v členských štátoch (smernice)12.
annex ii wp 4 — interviews during the audit, around 190 people were interviewed to obtain their views on the commission’s Ia system. these were producers (commission staff in the policy units responsible, the Ia support units in the dGs, and the secretariat General) and users within the eU Institutions (such as staff from the commissioners’ private offices, meps, ep and council staff, and staff from the permanent representations). they also included representatives from international and national organisations involved in ‘better regulation’ (such as the oecd and agencies in the member states), other bodies and groups (such as the ‘high Level Group of national regulatory experts’ and the ‘high Level expert Group on administrative Burdens’). 
príloha ii baLík činností 4: rozHovory Počas auditu sa viedli rozhovory s približne 190 osobami s cieľom dozvedieť sa ich názory na systém hodnotenia vplyvu Komisie. Medzi nimi boli tvorcovia (zamestnanci Komisie v príslušných oddeleniach súvisiacich s politikou, oddeleniach poskytujúcich podporu hodnoteniu vplyvu v generálnych riaditeľstvách a generálneho sekretariátu) aj používatelia z inštitúcií Eú (zamestnanci kabinetov komisárov, poslanci Európskeho parlamentu, zamestnanci EP a Rady a stálych zastúpení). zahŕňali tiež zástupcov medzinárodných a národných organizácií v oblasti lepšej právnej regulácie (napr. OEcD a agentúry v členských štátoch), iných orgánov a skupín (napr. skupina národných regulačných expertov na vysokej úrovni a expertná skupina na vysokej úrovni pre oblasť administratívneho zaťaženia).
In addition, interviews were carried out with representatives of stakeholder organisations: Business europe, eurochambers, european consumers’ organisation, european environmental Bureau, european Federations for transport and environment, european trade Union Federation, social Forum, world wide Fund for nature (wwF). wp 5 — surveys two surveys were performed during this audit: the first, in may/june 2009, among the members of seven council working parties on social questions, information society, energy, transport (maritime transport; land transport; transport, intermodal questions and networks), research, structural actions, and better regulation, concerning their perception and use of the commission’s impact assessments; the second, among the delegations of 25 member states and norway at the directors and experts of Better regulation meeting of 3–5 june 2009 in sandhamn (sweden). international exPerts in the field of ‘better reGulation’ Provided suPPort throuGhout the audit advisory panel 5. an advisory panel of experts in the field of ‘better regulation’ and impact assessment in november 2008 and march 2009 was set up to provide support throughout the audit13. the experts’ main input was to contribute to the court’s methodology and analysis and endorse the overall structure for presenting the audit observations, conclusions and recommendations set out in this report. 54 special report no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making? 
Okrem toho sa uskutočnili rozhovory so zástupcami zúčastnených organizácií: Business Europe, Eurochambers, Európska organizácia spotrebiteľov, Európsky úrad pre životné prostredie, Európska federácia pre dopravu a životné prostredie, Federácia odborových zväzov, Sociálna platforma, Svetový fond na ochranu prírody (World Wide Fund for Nature – WWF). baLík činností 5: prieskumy Počas tohto auditu sa uskutočnili dva prieskumy: prvý v máji/júni 2009 medzi členmi siedmich pracovných skupín Rady pre sociálne otázky, informačnú spoločnosť, energetiku, dopravu (námorná doprava; pozemná doprava; doprava, kombinovaná doprava a siete), výskum, štrukturálne opatrenia a lepšiu právnu reguláciu, pričom prieskum sa týkal ich vnímania a využívania hodnotení vplyvu Komisie; druhý medzi delegáciami 25 členských štátov a Nórska na zasadnutí riaditeľov a expertov v oblasti lepšej právnej regulácie v dňoch 3. až 5. júna 2009 v Sandhamne vo švédsku. medzinárodní experti v oBlasti lepŠej právnej reGulácie poskytovali podporu počas celého auditu poradná komisia 5.
55 annex ii 6. 
55 príloha ii 6.
In particular, the experts provided their input to the specification of robust audit standards against which the observations in this report are made. these standards were developed on the basis of a meta-analysis of documents issued by the mandelkern Group14, the oecd15 and the commission16 and of agreements between the latter and the european parliament and the council17 to specify a set of conditions (or ‘good practices’) which illustrate what should be expected from an effective impact assessment system18. focus group 7. an important step in this audit was the review of the preliminary audit findings during a series of facilitated focus groups from 8 to 10 july 2009 in Luxembourg with international experts in the field of ‘better regulation’ and Ia. these focus groups constituted an integral part of the audit process and were designed to provide a forum for the critical review of the court’s preliminary conclusions and possible recommendations. experts included representatives of the oecd, the world Bank, agencies in charge of Ia work (or quality control) in the Usa and several eU member states, national audit bodies, but also academics, evaluators of Ia systems and representatives of the ‘high Level expert Group on administrative Burdens’. representatives of the commission participated as observers. more information on the purpose of focus groups is provided hereafter. what is a focus group? 
Experti sa osobitne vyjadrili k špecifikácii účinných audítorských štandardov, a s ohľadom na ne sa predkladali pripomienky v tejto správe. Tieto štandardy boli vypracované na základe metanalýzy dokumentov vydaných pracovnou skupinou Mandelkern14, OEcD15 a Komisiou16, a dohôd medzi Komisiou a Európskym parlamentom a Radou17 na stanovenie súboru podmienok (alebo osvedčených postupov), ktoré by demonštrovali, čo by sa malo očakávať od účinného systému hodnotenia vplyvu18. skupinové diskusie 7.
Focus groups bring together a group of individuals with a common interest in the form of a collective interview or a structured discussion in which open-ended, but focused, questions are asked so as to trigger a debate amongst the participants. they are particularly well-suited for obtaining a number of views on the same subject. the use of focus groups is common in marketing and, increasingly, in politics and opinion polling in order to elicit responses and reveal new perspectives from a group of people held to be representative of consumers or target groups. the participants need to have an interest in the subject and ideally there should be a mixture of backgrounds. during a focus group session it can be expected that the discussion will stimulate views that, at first, are diverse and even divergent. one key role of the facilitator is therefore to manage the discussion in such a way that common ground can be found and views begin to converge, although full consensus of views is not the aim of a focus group discussion. special report no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making? 
Viac informácií o účele skupinových diskusií je uvedených nižšie. čo sÚ skupinové diskusie? Skupinové diskusie umožňujú jednotlivcom so spoločným záujmom vymeniť si názory vo forme spoločných rozhovorov a štruktúrovaných rokovaní, v rámci ktorých sa kladú otázky s otvoreným koncom, ktoré sú však zamerané na tému, s cieľom vyvolať diskusiu medzi účastníkmi.
56 annex ii 8. the experts were asked by external facilitators to scrutinise the audit work: the standards that were applied, the facts and findings reported, the conclusions drawn from this and, finally, whether the recommendations would help to mitigate the challenges observed by the audit. their review significantly contributed to the quality, relevance and legitimacy of the overall outcome of the audit process. a report summarising the proceedings and the outcome of the discussions by the external facilitators was submitted to all participants, and the commission, in august 200919. 
príloha ii 8. Externí koordinátori požiadali expertov, aby preskúmali audítorskú prácu: uplatnené štandardy, predložené skutočnosti a zistenia, prijaté závery a nakoniec tiež, či odporúčania napomôžu riešeniu výziev, ktoré sa pri audite zaznamenali.
1 eca, 2008 annual work programme, p. 
1 Európsky dvor audítorov, Ročný plán práce na rok 2008, s.
3; eca, annual activity report, p. 
3; výročná správa o činnosti, s.
2 the evaluation partnership, evaluation of the commission’s impact assessment system, contract sG-02/2006 on behalf of the european commission, april 2007. 
2 Partnerstvo pre hodnotenie, Hodnotenie systému Komisie na posudzovanie vplyvu, zmluva SG-02/2006 za Európsku komisiu, apríl 2007.
3 radaelli, c., ‘what does regulatory impact assessment mean in europe?’, aeI-Brookings joint center for regulatory studies, Usa, january 2005; rowe, G. c., ‘tools for the control of political and administrative agents: impact assessment and administrative governance in the european Union‘ in hoffman, h. c. h. and turk, a. h. (eds), EU administrative governance, edward elgar publishing, p. 
3 Radaelli, c., What does regulatory impact assessment mean in Europe?, AEI-Brookings joint center for Regulatory Studies, Spojené štáty americké, január 2005; Rowe, G.c., Tools for the control of political and administrative agents: impact assessment and administrative governance in the European Union v Hoffman, H.c.H a Turk, A.H. (editori), EU administrative Governance, Edward Elgar Publishing, s.
452, 2006; renda, a., Impact assessment in the EU — The state of the art and the art of the state, ceps paperbacks, 2006; mather, G. and vibert, F., Evaluating better regulation: building the system, City Research Series, european policy Forum, London, 2006; wiener, j. 
452, 2006; Renda, A., Impact assessment in the EU: The state of the art and the art of the state, cEPS Paperbacks, 2006; Mather, G. a Vibert, F., Evaluating Better Regulation: Building the system, city research series, European Policy Forum, londýn, 2006; Wiener, jB, Better regulation in Europe in current legal Problems, 2006, vol.
B., ‘Better regulation in europe’, in Current Legal Problems, 2006, vol. 
56; Kirkpatrick, c., Parker, D. et al, Regulatory impact assessment.
56; Kirkpatrick, c., parker, d. et al., ‘regulatory impact assessment. towards better regulation?’, The CRC Series on Competition, Regulation and Development, edward elgar publishing, Inc., massachusetts, Usa, 2007; meuwese, a. c. m., ‘Impact assessment in eU lawmaking’, Kluwer Law International Bv, the netherlands, 2008; open europe, ‘out of control? measuring a decade of eU regulation’, 2009; hertin, j. et al., ‘the production and use of knowledge in regulatory impact assessment — an empirical analysis’ in Forest Policy and Economics, 2009; centre for european policy studies (ceps); Policy-making in the EU — Achievements, challenges and proposals for reform, 2009. 
Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Massachusetts, Spojené štáty americké, 2007; Meuwese, A.c.M., Impact assessment in EU lawmaking, Kluwer law International BV, Holandsko, 2008; Open Europe, Out of control? Measuring a decade of EU regulation, 2009; Hertin, j., et al., The production and use of knowledge in regulatory impact assessment – An empirical analysis in Forest Policy and Economics, 2009; centre for European Policy Studies (cEPS): Policy-making in the EU – Achievements, challenges and proposals for reforms; 2009.
4 International regulatory reform conference, Berlin, november 2008; Zwischenbilanz nationaler normenkontrollrat (nKr), Berlin, may 2009. 
4 Medzinárodná konferencia o reforme právnych predpisov (International Regulatory Reform conference), Berlín, november 2008; zwischenbilanz Nationaler Normenkontrollrat (NKR), Berlín, máj 2009.
5 oecd, regulatory impact analysis (rIa) inventory, april 2004; oecd, Regulatory impact analysis — Best practices in EU countries, 1997; oecd, ‘apec–oecd integrated checklist on regulatory reform: final draft, 2005; oecd, Indicators of regulatory management systems, december 2009. 
5 OEcD, Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Inventory, apríl 2004; OEcD, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best Practice in OEcD countries (Analýza vplyvu regulácie: osvedčené postupy v krajinách OEcD), 1997; OEcD, APEc-OEcD Integrated checklist on Regulatory Reform: Final Draft (Integrovaný kontrolný zoznam APEc-OEcD týkajúci sa reformy právnych predpisov – konečná verzia), 2005; OEcD, Indicators of Regulatory Management Systems (Ukazovatele regulačného systému riadenia), december 2009.