natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Endorses that the Commission should provide a reliable and technically robust monitoring and evaluation system specific to FIs including that FIs should be segregated from pure grants in the Commission’s monitoring, reporting and auditing processes and the amount of money actually paid to the SMEs should be transparent;
podpira zamisel, da bi morala Komisija zagotoviti zanesljiv in tehnično stabilen sistem spremljanja in ocenjevanja, ki bi bil specifičen za finančne instrumente, vključno s tem, da bi bilo treba v postopkih spremljanja, poročanja in revidiranja, ki jih izvaja Komisija, finančne instrumente ločevati od čistih nepovratnih sredstev, znesek sredstev, dejansko izplačan malim in srednjim podjetjem, pa bi moral biti pregleden;
encourages the Commission and the Member States, in particular, to agree on a small number of measurable, relevant, specific and uniform result indicators for FIs;
spodbuja Komisijo in države članice, naj se dogovorijo zlasti o nekaterih merljivih, pomembnih, specifičnih in enotnih kazalnikih rezultatov za finančne instrumente;
Shares the opinion that the Commission should explore the possibility of supplying to the Member States off-the-shelf financial engineering structures and instruments for SMEs (e.g. grants with royalties, dedicated investment vehicles) only where these would result in speeding up implementation and in reducing management costs, though in such a way that this precondition does not excessively impair SMEs’ opportunities of making use of those funding schemes;
se strinja, da bi morala Komisija razmisliti o tem, da bi državam članicam standardne, hitro dostopne strukture in instrumente finančnega inženirstva za mala in srednja podjetja (npr. donacije z licenčninami, namenski naložbeni nosilci) zagotavljala samo, če bi to pospešilo izvajanje in če bi se zmanjšali stroški upravljanja, pri čemer pa ta pogoj ne bi smel bistveno vplivati na možnost malih in srednjih podjetij, da te programe financiranja izkoristijo;
stresses the importance of ensuring that financial engineering continues to remain flexible in order to adapt to both regional disparities and market changes;
poudarja, da bi moralo finančno inženirstvo ostati prožno, da se bo lahko prilagajalo regionalnim razlikam in spremembam na trgu;
Notes that Member States, with the support of the Commission, should aim at the inclusion of all ERDF co-financed FIs for SMEs into a single operational programme per Member State, or into a single priority axis in the national operational programme within a Member State, with the aim to rationalise the planning process and remove one of the key delaying factors found;
ugotavlja, da bi si morale države članice ob podpori Komisije prizadevati za vključitev finančnih instrumentov za mala in srednja podjetja, sofinanciranih iz ESRR, v enoten operativni program za posamezno državo članico ali v enotno prednostno os v nacionalnem operativnem programu posameznih držav članic, da bi s tem racionalizirali proces načrtovanja in odstranili enega od ugotovljenih ključnih dejavnikov za zamude;
Takes the view that the Commission should propose a common definition of multiplier effect, standard concepts of recycling in the Structural Funds regulations, depending on the type of holding fund or fund as well as require contractually binding minimum leverage ratios and minimum revolving periods and data for the calculation of leverage indicators;
meni, da bi morala Komisija pripraviti predlog skupne definicije multiplikacijskega učinka, standardnih pojmov ponovne uporabe finančnih sredstev v uredbah o strukturnih skladih glede na vrsto holdinškega sklada ali sklada, pa tudi zahtevati pogodbeno obvezujoče najnižje stopnje finančnega vzvoda, minimalna obdobja obnavljanja in podatke za izračun kazalnikov finančnega vzvoda;
considers that the concept of added value should be regarded as a relevant component in the calculation of leverage ratios in order to achieve relevant policy objectives as well as take market conditions into account;
meni, da bi bilo treba pojem dodane vrednosti razumeti kot smotrn sestavni del izračuna stopnje finančnega vzvoda, če naj se izpolnijo zastavljeni cilji politik in upoštevajo tržni pogoji;
considers that to this end it would be advisable to articulate the concept of European added value in the legal framework for the 2014-2020 period;
zato meni, da bi bilo v pravni okvir za obdobje 2014–2020 priporočljivo uvesti pojem evropske dodane vrednosti;
Asks the Council and the Commission to consider alternative ways of pursuing SME support through financial engineering instruments if the cohesion policy framework were to be considered unsuitable;
poziva Svet in Komisijo, naj preučita alternativne načine za nadaljevanje podpore malim in srednjim podjetjem prek instrumentov finančnega inženirstva, če bi bilo ugotovljeno, da okvir kohezijske politike ni ustrezen;
notes that such instruments should either be supported by programmes centrally managed by the Commission, dedicated investment vehicles in cooperation with the Commission and the Member States or by the Member States directly;
ugotavlja, da bi morali takšne instrumente podpreti programi, ki jih centralizirano upravlja Komisija, namenski naložbeni nosilci v sodelovanju s Komisijo in državami članicami ali pa neposredno države članice;
Recalls that the above-mentioned opinion of the Committee on Regional Development on innovative FIs in the context of the next MFF welcomed the application of FIs being extended under cohesion policy to all thematic objectives and all common strategic framework funds in the next programming period;
spominja, da je Odbor za regionalni razvoj v omenjenem mnenju o inovativnih finančnih instrumentih v povezavi z večletnim finančnim okvirom pozdravil razširitev uporabe finančnih instrumentov v okviru kohezijske politike v naslednjem programskem obdobju na vse tematske cilje in vse sklade skupnega strateškega okvira;
Part VII
Del VII
Special Report No 3/2012 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Structural Funds: Did the Commission successfully deal with deficiencies identified in the Member States’ management and control systems?’
Posebno poročilo Računskega sodišča št. 3/2012 z naslovom „Strukturni skladi: Ali je Komisija uspešno obravnavala pomanjkljivosti, ugotovljene v upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemih držav članic?“
Welcomes the Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 3/2012;
pozdravlja posebno poročilo Računskega sodišča št. 3/2012;
endorses all recommendations made by the Court and calls on the Commission to implement them effectively and as soon as possible;
odobrava vsa priporočila Računskega sodišča in poziva Komisijo, naj jih začne čim prej učinkovito izvajati;
Is pleased that the Commission systematically initiated corrective actions and that the actions requested were an appropriate response for the deficiencies in 90 % of cases (point (27);
je zadovoljen, da je Komisija sistematično začela izvajati popravne ukrepe in da so bili zahtevani ukrepi v 90 % primerov ustrezen odgovor na pomanjkljivosti (točka 27);
Notes that around 75 % of the requests based on annual reports as referred to in Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 [22] were not followed by financial corrections;
ugotavlja, da približno 75 % zahtevkom, ki temeljijo na letnih poročilih iz člena 13 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 438/2001 [22], niso sledili finančni popravki;
calls on the Commission, therefore, to provide information on the reasons for the absence of financial corrections in this context;
zato poziva Komisijo, naj posreduje informacije o razlogih, zakaj teh finančnih popravkov ni bilo;
Is concerned about the Commission’s different requirements in the 2000-2006 programming period with regard to the implementation of first-level checks as this can potentially result in the non-detection of irregular expenses;
je zaskrbljen zaradi različnih zahtev Komisije v programskem obdobju 2000–2006 glede izvajanja pregledov na prvi stopnji, saj bi zaradi tega lahko nepravilni stroški ostali neodkriti;
asks the Commission to apply a coherent approach to demands for first-level checks and to provide information for the programming periods after 2000-2006;
poziva Komisijo, naj do zahtev za preglede na prvi stopnji pristopi usklajeno in poda informacije za programska obdobja po 2000–2006;
notes that the legal basis for the 2007-2013 period requires managing authorities to verify administratively all applications for reimbursements by beneficiaries in accordance with Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 [23];
ugotavlja, da pravna podlaga za obdobje 2007–2013 zahteva, da upravljavski organi z upravnega vidika preverijo vse vloge upravičencev za povračilo stroškov skladno s členom 13(2) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1828/2006 [23];
Asks the Commission to disseminate even more extensively elaborated checklists and best practice manuals (with special focus on eligibility rules) to be followed by the Member States and to strengthen its supervision on how these elements are taken into account;
poziva Komisijo, naj državam članicam posreduje še podrobnejše kontrolne sezname in priročnike za najboljšo prakso (s posebnim poudarkom na pravilih upravičenosti), ki jih morajo upoštevati, ter poostri nadzor nad tem;
Believes first-level checks to be of utmost importance in ensuring a robust error rate from the onset of the implementation process;
meni, da so pregledi na prvi stopnji bistvenega pomena za zagotavljanje zanesljivih stopenj napak že v začetku izvajanja;
believes therefore, that the management authority should either be accredited by the Commission or the Commission should assist and supervise the management authority in exercising the aforementioned first-level checks;
zato je prepričan, da bi morala upravljavski organ imenovati Komisija oziroma bi mu morala pomagati in ga nadzirati pri izvajanju omenjenih pregledov;
Is concerned, however, in particular about the following observations:
vendar pa ga skrbijo zlasti naslednje ugotovitve:
corrective actions took 30 months on average (point (32) and delays were mainly attributable to the Member States concerned although the Commission was partially responsible for 39 % of cases and fully responsible for 5 % of cases (point (35),
popravni ukrepi so v povprečju trajali 30 mesecev (točka 32), zamude pa so večinoma nastale zaradi držav članic, čeprav je bila Komisija delno odgovorna za 39 % primerov, v celoti odgovorna pa za 5 % primerov (točka 35),
in only 67 % of cases the Commission obtained a high degree of assurance that financial corrections were accurate (point (55),
Komisija je zanesljivo zagotovilo, da so bili finančni popravki natančni, pridobila le v 67 % primerov (točka 55),
in only 28 % of cases the Commission obtained a high degree of assurance that the Member States’ management and control systems improved following corrective actions (point (64), which means that considerable effort will need to be undertaken in the closure process;
Komisija je le v 28 % primerov dobila zanesljivo zagotovilo, da so se upravljavski in kontrolni sistemi držav članic po izvedenih popravnih ukrepih izboljšali (točka 64), kar pomeni, da bodo v procesu zaključevanja potrebna precejšnja prizadevanja;
Is furthermore concerned about the Court of Auditors’ finding that Commission’s follow-up audits aiming to scrutinise the reliability of Member States‘ statements required further corrective actions by the Member States in 78 % of cases (point (45); is therefore worried that the Commission sometimes relied on potentially unreliable information by not sufficiently questioning information submitted by Member States (for example point 57, boxes 9 and 12) and that the Commission did not adequately scrutinise the reliability of the information; points out that the lack of reliability of Member States’ statements requires further audit resources by the Commission;
je poleg tega zaskrbljen zaradi ugotovitve Računskega sodišča, da je Komisija pri naknadnih revizijah, katerih namen je preveriti zanesljivost izjav držav članic, v 78 % primerov zahtevala dodatne popravne ukrepe držav članic (točka 45); zato ga skrbi, da se je Komisija včasih zanašala na morebiti nezanesljive podatke, saj ni dovolj natančno preverila informacij, ki so jih posredovale države članice (na primer točka 57, okvir 9 in 12), in da ni ustrezno preučila zanesljivosti podatkov; poudarja, da Komisija zaradi premajhne zanesljivosti izjav držav članic potrebuje dodatna sredstva za revizijo;
acknowledges also the need to balance appropriately cost and benefits of such follow-up audits (point (46);
poleg tega potrjuje, da je treba ustrezno uravnotežiti stroškovno učinkovitost teh naknadnih revizij (točka 46);
Believes that a substantially higher degree of efficiency can stem from reinforcing the role of the Commission in ex ante checks, rather than in ex post checks;
meni, da bi s povečanjem vloge Komisije pri vnaprejšnjem namesto pri naknadnem preverjanju dosegli precej večjo učinkovitost;
Reminds the Commission that the error rate in the policy area Cohesion has increased, according to the Court of Auditors’ Annual Report 2010, which reverses the positive trend observed in previous years and is contrary to an accelerated reduction of error rates, as called for by Parliament in the context of the 2008 discharge [24];
opozarja Komisijo, da se je v letnem poročilu Računskega sodišča za leto 2010 za področje kohezijske politike stopnja napak povečala, kar pomeni, da se je pozitivni trend iz prejšnjih let obrnil, v nasprotju z zahtevo Parlamenta za čim hitrejše zmanjšanje stopnje napak, ki jo je izrazil v postopku razrešnice za leto 2008 [24];
Reiterates the importance of the supervisory role the Commission exercises in order to be able to bear the ultimate responsibility for the implementation of the budget including the areas of shared management;
ponovno poudarja, da je izvajanje nadzorne vloge Komisije pomembno za prevzemanje končne odgovornosti za izvrševanje proračuna, vključno s področji deljenega upravljanja;
recalls the action plan to strengthen the Commission’s supervisory role under shared management of structural actions (COM(2008) 97) and the improved legal framework for the 2007-2013 programming period which aimed at reducing the level of error in structural actions and thus to protect the Union budget;
spominja na akcijski načrt za okrepitev nadzorne vloge Komisije pri deljenem upravljanju strukturnih ukrepov (COM(2008) 97) in na izboljšave pravnega okvira za programsko obdobje 2007–2013, da bi se zmanjšala stopnja napak pri strukturnih ukrepih in tako zaščitil proračun Unije;
notes, however, that the action plan of 2008 came only into force at the end of the programming period 2000-2006 and could therefore cover the closure process of that period only;
vendar ugotavlja, da je akcijski načrt za leto 2008 začel veljati šele ob koncu programskega obdobja 2000–2006 in se je lahko uporabil samo za njegov zaključek;
calls on the Commission therefore to fully enforce measures as stated in the action plan for the 2007-2013 programming period and beyond;
zato poziva Komisijo, naj v programskem obdobju 2007–2013 in po njem v celoti uveljavi ukrepe iz akcijskega načrta;
expects in this context from the Commission a considerable and steady decrease in error rates, in particular of programmes that are expected to have the highest error rates;
v zvezi s tem od Komisije pričakuje, da bo stopnja napak – zlasti pri programih, kjer naj bi bila po pričakovanjih najvišja – občutno in stalno upadala;
proposes that the Court of Auditors carry out a regular assessment of the technical and ethical quality of national audit authorities, with particular regard to their independence, and that it report its findings and conclusions to Parliament and the Council;
predlaga, naj Računsko sodišče redno ocenjuje tehnično in etično kakovost nacionalnih revizijskih organov, zlasti pa njihovo neodvisnost, ter o svojih ugotovitvah poroča Parlamentu in Svetu;
Emphasises that speed is of the essence in the process of controls to ensure that the financial interests of Union taxpayers are protected;
poudarja, da je hitrost v postopku kontrole bistvenega pomena, da se zagotovi zaščito finančnih interesov davkoplačevalcev Unije;
calls on the Commission to prioritise the earliest possible scrutiny, assessment and follow-up action in its future management oversight of these funds;
poziva Komisijo, naj pri upravljanju teh skladov v prihodnje prednost nameni čimprejšnjemu nadzoru, ocenam in nadaljnjim ukrepom;
Believes that improving the Commission’s supervisory role is an ongoing process;
meni, da je izboljševanje nadzorne vloge Komisije stalno potekajoč proces;
underlines in this context the Court of Auditors’ remark that although management and control systems were effective at a certain time this does not necessarily mean that they continue to be effective, as systems, personnel and entities in charge of management of structural actions may change;
v povezavi s tem opozarja na ugotovitev Računskega sodišča, da čeprav so bili upravljavski in kontrolni sistemi v določenem obdobju učinkoviti, to ne pomeni nujno, da bodo učinkoviti tudi v prihodnje, saj se sistemi, uslužbenci in enote, ki skrbijo za upravljanje strukturnih ukrepov, lahko spremenijo;
calls on the Commission to endorse fully the Court of Auditors’ recommendations;
poziva Komisijo, naj v celoti sprejme priporočila Računskega sodišča;
considers enhancements of the action plan to be necessary if the expectations with regard to the improvement of the Commission’s financial management are not met;
meni, da bo treba akcijski načrt nadgraditi, če se pričakovanja glede izboljšanja finančnega poslovodenja Komisije ne bodo izpolnila;
Asks the Commission to make efforts to ensure that Member States do not affect the continuity of programmes by changing entities, systems and personnel responsible for Structural Funds control, that had already been certified as effective by the Commission;
poziva Komisijo, naj zagotovi, da države članice z zamenjavami subjektov, sistemov in zaposlenih, odgovornih za nadzor nad strukturnimi skladi, ki ga je Komisija že potrdila kot učinkovitega, ne bodo škodovale nemotenemu izvajanju programov;
Notes with satisfaction the high number of preventive actions including financial corrections enforced by the Commission following the adoption of the action plan in 2008;
z zadovoljstvom ugotavlja, da je Komisija po sprejetju akcijskega načrta leta 2008 izvedla številne preventivne ukrepe, med drugim finančne popravke;
asks the Commission therefore to provide information on the impact of those corrections on the overall error rate for the 2000-2006 programming period;
zato jo poziva, naj predloži podatke o tem, kako so ti popravki vplivali na splošno stopnjo napake v programskem obdobju 2000–2006;
Reiterates the idea of a ‘single audit’ that was pronounced by the Court of Auditors in its Opinion No 2/2004;
ponovno opozarja na zamisel o enotni reviziji, ki jo je Računsko sodišče podalo v svojem mnenju št. 2/2004;
believes that in an effective and efficient internal control system common principles and standards should be the basis for the administration at all levels [25];
meni, da bi morali v uspešnem in učinkovitem sistemu notranjega nadzora skupna načela in standardi tvoriti temelje za upravljanje na vseh ravneh [25];
notes that — provided that the audit authorities produce reliable results — the Union budget could be adequately protected even if high error rates are present as the Commission could apply financial corrections to counter those error rates;
ugotavlja, da bi lahko pod pogojem, da revizijski organi zagotovijo zanesljive rezultate, ustrezno zaščitili proračun Unije kljub visokim stopnjam napak, saj bi lahko Komisija za odpravo teh stopenj napak uporabila finančne popravke;
reiterates, however, the fact that in such cases the national taxpayer has to pay twice which is why preventing errors from happening is always more efficient than correcting it later on, for both the Commission and the Member States concerned;
vendar ponovno opozarja, da bi morali v tem primeru davkoplačevalci v državah članicah plačati dvakrat, zato je preprečevanje napak vedno učinkovitejše od poznejšega popravljanja, tako za Komisijo kot za udeležene države članice;
stresses in this context specifically indent 2 of the Court of Auditors’ recommendation 1 and urges the Commission to implement this recommendation;
v zvezi s tem izrecno opozarja na alineo 2 priporočila 1 Računskega sodišča in poziva Komisijo, naj to priporočilo izvede;
Calls on the Commission to finalise the closure of the 2000-2006 programming period duly taking into account the Court of Auditors’ observations and to report to Parliament on how the Commission will ensure legality and regularity in the process;
poziva Komisijo, naj ustrezno zaključi programsko obdobje 2000–2006 in pri tem upošteva pripombe Računskega sodišča ter Parlamentu poroča o tem, kako bo zagotovila zakonitost in pravilnost postopka;
Calls on the Commission, furthermore, to take into account the lessons learned from the Court of Auditor’s report and to monitor the implementation of structural actions for the 2007-2013 period and to bear in mind the Court of Auditors’ observations in the discussions on the future structural actions for the period 2014-2020;
poleg tega Komisijo poziva, naj upošteva spoznanja iz poročila Računskega sodišča in spremlja izvajanje strukturnih ukrepov v obdobju 2007–2013 ter med razpravami o prihodnosti strukturnih ukrepov za obdobje 2014–2020 ne pozabi na pripombe Računskega sodišča;
Believes strongly that the Commission should deepen its involvement in the Structural Funds scrutiny process by further assisting and supervising Member States’ management and certifying authorities as well as the winding-up bodies, throughout all phases of implementation and verification, in order to ensure an even more efficient and less time and resource consuming process;
je trdno prepričan, da bi morala Komisija tesneje sodelovati pri nadzoru strukturnih skladov z nadaljnjo pomočjo in spremljanjem upravljanja v državah članicah, pa tudi pri nadzoru organov za potrjevanje in organov, ki zaključujejo pomoč, v vseh fazah izvajanja in preverjanja, da bodo postopki učinkovitejši, krajši in cenejši;
Part VIII
Del VIII
Special Report No 4/2012 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Using Structural and Cohesion Funds to co-finance transport infrastructures in seaports: an effective investment?’
Posebno poročilo Računskega sodišča št. 4/2012 z naslovom „Uporaba Strukturnega sklada in Kohezijskega sklada za sofinanciranje prometne infrastrukture v morskih pristaniščih: uspešna naložba?“
Welcomes the Court of Auditors’ report and notes its deprecatory appraisal of the performance of both the Commission and the Member States with regard to the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of fund spending in the field of co-financed seaport projects;
pozdravlja poročilo Računskega sodišča in ugotavlja, da sta bila uspešnost in stroškovna učinkovitost Komisije in držav članic pri uporabi sredstev za sofinancirane projekte morskih pristanišč negativno ocenjena;
Welcomes the Commission’s endorsement of the majority of the Court of Auditors’ recommendations;
pozdravlja dejstvo, da je Komisija sprejela večino priporočil Računskega sodišča;
Considers the majority of actions undertaken by the Commission in order to prevent future shortcomings of the sort revealed by the report to be capable of achieving the goal of more effective and more cost-efficient spending;
meni, da lahko večina ukrepov, ki jih je Komisija sprejela za preprečitev prihodnjih tovrstnih pomanjkljivosti, ugotovljenih v poročilu, prispeva k uspešnejši in stroškovno učinkovitejši porabi;
Considers, however, that further action by the Commission is necessary;
vendar meni, da mora Komisija sprejeti dodatne ukrepe;
Is concerned about the fact that:
je zaskrbljen, ker:
out of 27 projects examined, four were not completed by the time the report was concluded, with two projects still unfinished by January 2012,
štirje od 27 pregledanih projektov do dneva, ko je bilo poročilo zaključeno, niso bili končani, dva izmed njih pa nista bila končana še niti januarja 2012,