natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
When part of an evaluation takes place away from the Commission premises (“remote evaluation”), the observer may assess that stage after the event on the basis of discussion with the experts once they have gathered in Brussels (or other central evaluation site).
Če se del ocenjevanja opravi zunaj prostorov Komisije (‚ocenjevanje na daljavo‘), lahko opazovalec oceni stopnjo, doseženo po dogodku, na podlagi razprave s strokovnjaki, ko se spet zberejo v Bruslju (ali na drugem osrednjem kraju ocenjevanja).
The Commission shall inform the programme committees of the choice of experts as observers, and their terms of reference as well as of the observers’ findings and may make available publicly a summary of their report.
Komisija obvesti programske odbore o izbiri strokovnjakov za opazovalce, njihovem obsegu pooblastil in tudi o ugotovitvah opazovalcev ter lahko objavi povzetek njihovega poročila.
Observers are required to respect the same obligations as the experts with regard to confidentiality and avoidance of conflicts of interest, and they sign the same declaration to that effect (see Annex F).
Od opazovalcev se zahteva, da spoštujejo enake obveznosti kot strokovnjaki glede zaupnosti in izogibanja navzkrižju interesov, zato morajo v ta namen podpisati enako izjavo (glej Prilogo F).
They are not permitted to divulge details of the proposals, the experts assigned to examining the proposals, nor the discussions in the evaluation panels.
Opazovalci ne smejo razkrivati podrobnosti o predlogih, imen strokovnjakov, ki so imenovani za ocenjevanje predlogov, ali vsebine razprav v ocenjevalnih odborih.
The observers have to respect a code of conduct annexed to their letter of appointment.
Delovati morajo skladno s kodeksom ravnanja, ki je priložen njihovemu obvestilu o imenovanju.
All eligible proposals are evaluated by the Commission, assisted by experts where provided for, to assess their merit with respect to the evaluation criteria relevant for the call.
Komisija oceni vse ustrezne predloge, pri tem pa ji po potrebi pomagajo strokovnjaki, ki preverijo skladnost vsebine predlogov z ocenjevalnimi merili, ki se uporabljajo za razpis.
The detailed evaluation criteria and sub-criteria [27], and associated weights and thresholds, are set out in the work programmes, based on the principles given in the specific programmes, and on the criteria given in the Rules for Participation.
Podrobna merila in podmerila za ocenjevanje [27] ter s tem povezani ponderji in pragovi so določeni v delovnih programih, temeljijo pa na načelih iz posebnih programov in merilih iz pravil za udeležbo.
The criteria consist of selection and award criteria in the meaning of the Financial Regulation (Article 115) and its implementing rules [28] (Articles 176 and 177).The manner in which they will be applied will be further explained in the call for proposals and associated Guide for Applicants.
Merila so sestavljena iz meril za izbiro in dodelitev v pomenu Finančne uredbe (člen 115) in njenih izvedbenih predpisov [28] (člena 176 in 177).Način njihove uporabe bo dodatno pojasnjen v razpisu za zbiranje predlogov in pripadajočem priročniku za vložnike.
Experts examine the issues to be considered comprising each evaluation criterion, and score these on a scale from 0 to 5.
Strokovnjaki preučijo vprašanja, ki jih je treba upoštevati za vsako ocenjevalno merilo, in jih točkujejo na lestvici od 0 do 5.
Half point scores may be given.
Dodelijo se lahko tudi polovične točke.
For each criterion under examination, score values indicate the following assessments:
Za vsako merilo, ki se ocenjuje, vrednosti točk pomenijo naslednje ocene:
0 — The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information;
0 – Predlog ne upošteva merila, ki se ocenjuje, ali pa predloga zaradi manjkajočih ali nepopolnih informacij ni mogoče oceniti.
1 — Poor: The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses;
1 – Slabo: merilo je neustrezno upoštevano ali pa so bile ugotovljene resne notranje šibkosti.
2 — Fair: While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses;
2 – Primerno: čeprav predlog večinoma upošteva merilo, so bile ugotovljene pomembne šibkosti.
3 — Good: The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary;
3 – Dobro: v predlogu je merilo dobro upoštevano, čeprav bi bile potrebne izboljšave.
4 — Very Good: The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible;
4 – Zelo dobro: v predlogu je merilo zelo dobro upoštevano, čeprav so nekatere izboljšave še vedno mogoče.
5 — Excellent: The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question.
5 – Odlično: v predlogu so uspešno upoštevani vsi pomembni vidiki obravnavanega merila.
Any shortcomings are minor.
Pomanjkljivosti so neznatne.
Thresholds are set for some or all of the criteria, such that any proposal failing to achieve the threshold scores will be rejected.
Za nekatera ali vsa merila se lahko postavijo pragovi, na podlagi katerih se zavrnejo vsi predlogi, ki ne dosežejo vrednosti zahtevanega praga.
In addition, an overall threshold may also be set.
Poleg tega se lahko določi tudi skupni prag.
The thresholds to be applied to each criterion as well as any overall threshold are set out in the work programme and call.
Pragovi, ki se uporabljajo za posamezno merilo, in morebitni skupni pragovi so določeni v delovnem programu in razpisu.
If the proposal fails to achieve a threshold for a criterion, the evaluation of the proposal may be stopped.
Ocenjevanje predloga se lahko ustavi, če predlog ne doseže praga za določeno merilo.
It may be decided to divide the evaluation into several steps with the possibility of different experts examining the different criteria.
Lahko se sprejme odločitev, da se ocenjevanje razdeli na več korakov z možnostjo, da različni strokovnjaki preučijo različna merila.
Where the evaluation is carried out in several successive steps, any proposal failing a threshold score may not progress to the next step.
Če se ocenjevanje izvaja v več zaporednih korakih, potem predlog, ki ne doseže vrednosti zahtevanega praga, ne more napredovati do naslednjega koraka.
Such proposals may immediately be categorised as rejected.
Taki predlogi se lahko nemudoma zavrnejo.
According to the specific nature of the funding schemes and the call, it may be decided to weight the criteria.
Glede na posebno naravo shem financiranja in razpisa se lahko sprejme odločitev o ponderiranju meril.
The weightings to be applied to each criterion are set out in the work programme and call.
Ponderji, ki se uporabijo za posamezno merilo, so določeni v delovnem programu in razpisu.
Detailed description of proposal evaluation [29]
Podroben opis ocenjevanja predloga [29]
Briefing of the experts
Dajanje napotkov strokovnjakom
The Commission is responsible for the briefing of experts before evaluation sessions.
Komisija je odgovorna za dajanje napotkov strokovnjakom pred posameznimi ocenjevanji.
The briefing of the experts covers the evaluation processes and procedures as well as the evaluation criteria to be applied, and the content and expected impacts of the research topics under consideration.
Napotki za strokovnjake zajemajo ocenjevalne procese, postopke in ocenjevalna merila, ki naj se uporabljajo, ter vsebino in pričakovane vplive obravnavanih raziskovalnih tem.
Specific warnings about confidentiality, impartiality and concealment of conflict of interest will be included.
Vključijo se posebna opozorila o zaupnosti, nepristranskosti in prikrivanju navzkrižja interesov.
Particular attention will be given to the briefing of experts who will work remotely, when specially adapted material may be needed (e.g. CD-ROMs, on-line presentations).
Posebna pozornost bo posvečena dajanju napotkov strokovnjakom, ki bodo delali na daljavo, kadar je potrebno posebno prilagojeno gradivo (npr. CD-ROM, spletne predstavitve).
Close contact is maintained with the individual experts to assist them on any query.
S posameznimi strokovnjaki se vseskozi ohranja tesen stik, če bi v primeru dvomov potrebovali pomoč.
Individual evaluation of proposals
Individualna ocena predlogov
Proposals are evaluated by a minimum of three experts.
Predloge ocenijo najmanj trije strokovnjaki.
A minimum of five experts will apply to proposals for Networks of Excellence, and in other cases when specified in the relevant Guide for Applicants.
Najmanj pet strokovnjakov je potrebnih za predloge v zvezi z mrežami odličnosti in v drugih primerih, kakor je določeno v ustreznem priročniku za vložnike.
In the initial phase of the evaluation each expert works individually, and gives scores and comments for each criterion as described in the work programme and call.
V začetni fazi ocenjevanja vsak strokovnjak dela individualno ter poda svojo oceno in mnenje za vsako merilo, kot je opisano v delovnem programu in razpisu.
They also indicate if the proposal:
Navesti mora tudi, če predlog:
falls entirely out of the scope of the call for proposals,
nikakor ne spada v okvir razpisa za zbiranje predlogov,
deals with sensitive ethical issues,
obravnava občutljiva etična vprašanja,
requires further scrutiny with regard to security considerations (see Annex B).
zahteva nadaljnjo presojo v zvezi z varnostnimi vprašanji (glej Prilogo B).
When remote evaluation is used, the Commission forwards copies of the proposals to be examined to each individual expert.
Pri ocenjevanju na daljavo Komisija vsakemu posameznemu strokovnjaku pošlje kopije predlogov, ki naj se ocenijo.
This may be done by sending paper copies by post or courier service or by making the proposal available electronically.
Predlogi se lahko pošljejo v papirni obliki s poštno pošiljko ali po kurirski službi ali se dajo na razpolago v elektronski obliki.
Justification of scoring
Utemeljitev ocene
Experts are required to provide comments to accompany each of their scores.
Od strokovnjakov se zahteva, da predložijo pripombe k vsaki oceni.
These comments must be consistent with any scores awarded and serve as input to any consensus discussion and related consensus report.
Te pripombe morajo ustrezati dodeljeni oceni in se lahko uporabijo za katero koli razpravo o soglasju ali poročilo o soglasju, ki je s tem povezano.
Outcome of the individual evaluation
Rezultati individualnega ocenjevanja
After the individual evaluation of a proposal, the expert completes an individual evaluation report confirming his/her individual reading and assessment.
Po individualni oceni predloga strokovnjak sestavi poročilo o individualnem ocenjevanju, ki potrjuje njegovo individualno branje in presojo.
In the case of remote evaluation, the results are communicated to the Commission by post or electronically.
V primeru ocenjevanja na daljavo se rezultati sporočijo Komisiji po pošti ali v elektronski obliki.
The expert’s individual evaluation report shall not subsequently be changed.
Strokovnjak poročila o individualnem ocenjevanju ne more več naknadno spreminjati.
In signing (or approving by electronic means) the individual evaluation report, each expert confirms that he/she has no conflict of interest with respect to the evaluation of that particular proposal.
S podpisom (ali elektronsko potrditvijo) poročila o individualnem ocenjevanju vsak strokovnjak potrjuje, da ni v navzkrižju interesov glede ocenjevanja tega posameznega predloga.
In some instances, experts may be asked to perform only the individual evaluation.
V nekaterih primerih se strokovnjaki lahko zaprosijo, da opravijo samo individualno ocenjevanje.
In this case, their individual evaluation report are forwarded to the experts involved in the consensus phase (see below) to be taken into account in the preparation of the consensus report.
Takrat strokovnjaki svoja poročila o individualnem ocenjevanju pošljejo strokovnjakom, ki so vključeni v fazo doseganja soglasja (glej spodaj), da jih ti lahko upoštevajo pri pripravi poročila o soglasju.
If a proposal is considered to be out of scope by all individual experts, it may be considered to be ineligible and may not be passed on to the consensus stage.
Če vsak posamezen strokovnjak oceni, da predlog ne spada v ustrezen okvir, se predlog lahko šteje za neupravičenega in se ne sme posredovati naprej na stopnjo doseganja soglasja.
Once all the experts to whom a proposal has been assigned have completed their individual assessments, the evaluation progresses to a consensus assessment, representing their common views.
Ko so vsi strokovnjaki, katerim je bil dodeljen predlog, podali svoje individualne ocene, se ocenjevanje nadaljuje na stopnji doseganja soglasja, ki predstavlja njihova skupna stališča.
This normally entails a consensus meeting (or electronic forum) to discuss the scores awarded and to prepare comments.
To je običajno sestavljeno iz srečanja za doseganje soglasja (ali elektronskega foruma), v okviru katerega potekajo razgovori o prejetih ocenah in se pripravijo pripombe.
The consensus discussion is moderated by a Commission representative (“the moderator”).
Razpravo za doseganje soglasja vodi predstavnik Komisije (‚moderator‘).
The role of the moderator is to seek a consensus between the individual views of experts without any prejudice for or against particular proposals or the organisations involved, and to ensure a fair and equitable evaluation of each proposal according to the required evaluation criteria.
Vloga moderatorja je, da poskuša doseči soglasje med posameznimi pogledi strokovnjakov, in sicer brez predsodkov za določene predloge ali vključene organizacije ali proti njim, in da zagotovi pošteno in nepristransko ocenjevanje vsakega predloga v skladu z zahtevanimi merili za ocenjevanje.
The moderator for the group may designate an expert to be responsible for drafting the consensus report (“rapporteur”).
Moderator skupine lahko imenuje strokovnjaka, ki je pristojen za izdelavo osnutka poročila o soglasju (‚poročevalec‘).
The experts attempt to agree on a consensus score for each of the criteria that have been evaluated and suitable comments to justify the scores.
Strokovnjaki poskušajo doseči soglasje za vsako merilo, ki je bilo ocenjeno, in se dogovorijo o ustreznih pripombah za utemeljitev ocen.
Comments should be suitable for feedback to the proposal coordinator.
Pripombe morajo koordinatorjem predloga ponuditi povratne informacije.
Scores and comments are set out in a consensus report.
Ocene in pripombe so določene v poročilu o soglasju.
If applicable, they also come to a common view on the questions of scope, ethics and security, as mentioned under step (b) above.
Če je ustrezno, morajo prav tako doseči skupno stališče o vprašanjih vsebine, etike in varnosti, kakor je navedeno v zgornjem koraku (b).
If during the consensus discussion it is found to be impossible to bring all the experts to a common point of view on any particular aspect of the proposal, the Commission official in charge of the evaluation may ask up to three additional experts to examine the proposal.
Če se med razpravo za doseganje soglasja ugotovi, da o določenem vidiku predloga ni mogoče doseči skupnega stališča vseh strokovnjakov, lahko uradnik Komisije, ki vodi ocenjevanje, zaprosi največ tri dodatne strokovnjake, da preučijo predlog.
Outcome of consensus
Rezultat soglasja
The outcome of the consensus step is the consensus report, signed (or approved by electronic means) by the moderator and all the experts, or as a minimum, by the moderator and the “rapporteur”.
Rezultat stopnje doseganja soglasja je poročilo o soglasju, ki ga podpišejo (ali elektronsko potrdijo) moderator in vsi strokovnjaki, oziroma najmanj moderator in ‚poročevalec‘.
The moderator is responsible for ensuring that the consensus report reflects the consensus reached, expressed in scores and comments.
Moderator mora zagotoviti, da poročilo o soglasju odraža doseženo soglasje, ki je izraženo v ocenah in pripombah.
In the case that it is impossible to reach a consensus, the report sets out the majority view of the experts but also records any dissenting views, possibly in annex, from any particular expert(s).
Če soglasja ni mogoče doseči, se v poročilu zapiše večinsko mnenje strokovnjakov, zabeležijo pa se tudi različna mnenja posameznih strokovnjakov, po potrebi v prilogi.
The Commission will take the necessary steps to assure the quality of the consensus reports, with particular attention given to clarity, consistency, appropriate level of detail.
Komisija sprejme potrebne korake za zagotovitev kakovosti poročil o soglasju, pri čemer je posebna pozornost dana jasnosti, skladnosti in ustrezni ravni podrobnosti.
If important changes are necessary, the reports will be referred back to the experts concerned.
Če so potrebne bistvene spremembe, se poročila pošljejo nazaj zadevnim strokovnjakom.
The signing (or electronic approval) of the consensus report completes the consensus step.
S podpisom (ali elektronsko odobritvijo) poročil o soglasju je stopnja za doseganje soglasja končana.
Evaluation of a resubmitted proposal
Ocenjevanje ponovno vloženih predlogov
In the case of proposals that have been submitted previously to the Commission in FP7, the moderator gives the experts the previous evaluation summary report (see below) at the consensus stage, if the previous evaluation took place under comparable conditions (e.g. broadly similar work programme topics and criteria).
V primeru predlogov, ki so bili Komisiji že predloženi v okviru 7OP, moderator da strokovnjakom na voljo prejšnje zbirno poročilo o ocenjevanju (glej spodaj) na stopnji doseganja soglasja, če je prejšnje ocenjevanje potekalo pod primerljivimi pogoji (npr. večinoma podobne teme delovnega programa in merila).
If necessary, the experts will be required to provide a clear justification for their scores and comments should these differ markedly from those awarded to the earlier proposal.
Če je potrebno, se od strokovnjakov zahteva, da jasno utemeljijo svoje ocene in pripombe, v kolikor se bistveno razlikujejo od tistih, ki so bile dodeljene prejšnjemu predlogu.
This is the final step involving the experts.
To je zadnji korak, v katerega so vključeni strokovnjaki.
It allows them to formulate their recommendations to the Commission having had an overview of the results of the consensus step.
Omogoča jim, da oblikujejo svoja priporočila Komisiji na podlagi pregleda, ki ga imajo nad rezultati iz stopnje doseganja soglasja.
The practical arrangements are determined in the light of the nature of the call and number of proposals submitted to it.
Praktične ureditve se določijo glede na naravo razpisa in število predlogov, prejetih za razpis.
For a particular call, or part of a call, it may be possible to arrange for all the experts to examine all the proposals, and carry out their final review at the same time as they prepare the consensus reports.
Za določen razpis ali del razpisa se lahko določi, da vsi strokovnjaki pregledajo vse predloge in opravijo končen pregled takrat, ko pripravijo poročila o soglasju.
These experts are thus considered to constitute the panel.
Šteje se, da ti strokovnjaki sestavljajo odbor.
Otherwise, a new panel is created that may comprise experts involved at the consensus step, new experts, or a mixture of the two.
V nasprotnem primeru se lahko sestavi nov odbor iz strokovnjakov, ki so vključeni v stopnjo doseganja soglasja, novih strokovnjakov ali mešanice obeh.
There may be one panel covering the whole call or several panels covering different activities, topics, or funding schemes.
Ustanovi se lahko en odbor za celoten razpis ali več odborov, ki pokrivajo različne ukrepe, teme ali sheme financiranja.
Role of the panel
Vloga odbora
The main task of the panel is to examine and compare the consensus reports in a given area, to check on the consistency of the marks and comments applied during the consensus discussions and, where necessary, propose a new set of marks or revision of comments.
Glavna naloga odbora je pregledati in primerjati poročila o soglasju z določenega področja, preveriti skladnosti ocen in pripomb, uporabljenih med razpravami za doseganje soglasja in po potrebi predlagati nov sklop ocen ali revizijo pripomb.
The tasks of the panel may also include:
Naloge odbora lahko vključujejo tudi:
hearings with the applicants of those proposals that have passed thresholds (see below),
zaslišanja vložnikov tistih predlogov, ki so dosegli pragove (glej spodaj),
resolving cases where a minority view was recorded in the consensus report,
reševanje primerov, ko so bila v poročilo o soglasju zapisana mnenja manjšine,
recommending a priority order for proposals with the same score (only if necessary, taking into account the available budget, or other conditions of the call set out in the work programme),
oblikovanje priporočil glede prednostnega vrstnega reda za enako ocenjene predloge (samo če je potrebno, ob upoštevanju razpoložljivega proračuna ali drugih pogojev razpisa, ki so določeni v delovnem programu),
making recommendations on possible clustering or combination of proposals.
oblikovanje priporočil o morebitnem združevanju ali kombiniranju predlogov.
The panel is either chaired by the Commission, or by an expert appointed by the Commission.
Odboru predseduje Komisija ali strokovnjak, ki ga Komisija imenuje.
In either case, the Commission will ensure fair and equal treatment of the proposals in the panel discussions.
V vsakem primeru Komisija zagotovi pravično in enako obravnavo predlogov v razpravah odbora.
A panel “rapporteur” (who may also be the panel chairperson) may be appointed to draft the panel’s advice.
Imenovati je mogoče tudi ‚poročevalca‘ odbora (to je lahko tudi predsednik odbora), ki pripravi predlog odbora.
Hearings with applicants
Zaslišanja vložnikov
Hearings with applicants may be organised as part of the panel deliberations.
Kot del razprave odbora se lahko organizirajo tudi zaslišanja vložnikov.
Hearings may be particularly useful in calls, or parts of calls, that attract large scale integrating collaborative projects and/or Networks of Excellence.
Zaslišanja so lahko zlasti koristna pri razpisih ali delih razpisov, ki pritegnejo obsežne integrirane skupne projekte in/ali mreže odličnosti.
When hearings are held, invitations are sent to the coordinators of those proposals having consensus scores above the individual and overall thresholds.
V primeru zaslišanj se vabila pošljejo koordinatorjem tistih predlogov, pri katerih so rezultati doseganja soglasja nad posameznimi in skupnimi pragovi.
In some calls it may be decided to extend the invitation to representatives of those proposals that passed the individual thresholds, but that failed the overall threshold.
Pri nekaterih razpisih se lahko sprejme odločitev, da se vabila razširijo na predstavnike tistih predlogov, ki so dosegli posamezne pragove, vendar niso izpolnjevali skupnega praga.
In either case, the condition for issuing invitations shall be applied consistently in relation to all proposals submitted to a call, or part of the call under a particular indicative budget line in the work programme).
V vsakem primeru je treba pogoje za izdajanje vabil uporabiti dosledno ob upoštevanju vseh predlogov, predloženih na razpis ali del razpisa v okviru določene okvirne proračunske postavke v delovnem programu.
The applicants will, thus, not be invited to present their proposal, but to provide explanations and clarifications to questions submitted to them in advance.
Vložniki na zaslišanjih ne predstavljajo svojih predlogov, ampak s pojasnili in obrazložitvami odgovarjajo na vprašanja, ki so jih dobili vnaprej.
Any particular issues raised by individual proposals requiring specific expertise may be dealt with by inviting appropriate extra experts to the hearings for those proposals.
V primeru, da posamezni predlogi opozorijo na posebne probleme, ki zahtevajo specifična strokovna znanja, se lahko ti problemi rešujejo tako, da se na zaslišanja za te predloge povabijo ustrezni dodatni strokovnjaki.
In this case, the extra experts are only invited to comment on the particular issue on which they have expertise and not on the proposal as a whole.
V tem primeru dodatni strokovnjaki izrazijo svoje mnenje izključno o problemu, o katerem imajo strokovno znanje, in ne o celotnem predlogu.