natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This provision resulted in a disincentive for private participation, in particular for SMEs which could not compete on equal terms against larger organisations. 
Ta določba je odvračala zasebno udeležbo, predvsem MSP, ki niso mogli enakovredno konkurirati večjim organizacijam. V okviru 7.
Under FP7 more freedom is given to consortia when defining access to existing knowledge in terms of Intellectual property rights. 
OP imajo konzorciji več svobode pri opredeljevanju dostopa do obstoječega znanja z vidika pravic intelektualne lastnine.
THE COMMISSION’S MANAGEMENT OF NEW INSTRUMENTS 44. 
KOMISIJINO UPRAVLJANJE NOVIH INSTRUMENTOV 44.
The Commission’s management has a decisive role in ensuring the success of FP6 activities, in particular by making it attractive to potential participants and steering project progress. 
Komisijino upravljanje ima odločilno vlogo pri zagotavljanju uspeha dejavnosti 6. OP, zlasti tako, da poskrbi, da je privlačen morebitnim udeležencem, in usmerja napredek projektov.
Manageable structures, clarity of objectives, rapid and straightforward procedures, and adequate project monitoring are all determinants of the instruments’ effectiveness. 
Obvladljivost struktur, jasnost ciljev, hitri in enostavni postopki ter ustrezno spremljanje projekta so vsi odločilni dejavniki za uspešnost instrumentov.
In this context, the Court analysed the implementation of eight calls for proposals and examined selected management process having a key impact on the instruments’ performance (namely negotiation and project monitoring). 
V tem kontekstu je Sodišče analiziralo izvajanje osmih razpisov za zbiranje predlogov in preučilo izbrani upravljavski postopek, ki je imel ključni učinek na uspešnost instrumentov (in sicer na pogajanja in spremljanje projekta).
The Court’s audit highlighted a number of weaknesses. 
Revizija, ki jo je izvedlo Sodišče, je pokazala številne slabosti.
As shown by Figure 7, a number of actors (mainly participants and to a lesser extent also coordinators) reached no or insufficient understanding about the specific objectives that the instruments were to achieve and the way in which the instruments were supposed to work. 
NEGOTOVOSTI GLEDE POSEBNE VLOGE INSTRUMENTOV 45. Kot je prikazano v diagramu 7, številni akterji (večinoma udeleženci, v manjšem obsegu pa tudi koordinatorji) niso ali so le pomanjkljivo razumeli posebne cilje, ki naj bi jih instrumenti dosegli, in načina, kako naj bi ti instrumenti delovali.
In particular for NoEs, the survey results indicate that they were mainly understood as a networking instrument, while the objective was that of favouring lasting integration among networked partners. 
Zlasti za mreže odličnosti se je pri rezultatih ankete pokazalo, da se jih je večinoma dojemalo kot instrument za povezovanje v mrežo, medtem ko je bil cilj podpreti trajno povezovanje partnerjev v mreži.
The start of FP6 was characterised by some confusion among potential applicants, particularly concerning NoEs. 
OP so bile značilne nekatere nejasnosti med potencialnimi vlagatelji, zlasti v zvezi z mrežami odličnosti.
And further problems were caused by inconsistent communication from the Commission services25. 
Dodatne težave je povzročila nedosledna komunikacija služb Komisije25.
Understanding of policy objectives is a key factor for effectiveness. 
Ključni dejavnik uspešnosti je razumevanje ciljev politike.
The Commission has to ensure that different actors are clear about the goals to be pursued. 
Komisija mora zagotoviti, da so različnim akterjem jasni zastavljeni ožji cilji.
In this respect the role of the coordinators should be highlighted, as they show a far better understanding than participants. 
V zvezi s tem bi bilo treba okrepiti vlogo koordinatorjev, saj je v primerjavi z udeleženci njihovo razumevanje precej boljše.
This indicates a problem of communication within consortia, probably aggravated by the high number of participants (see paragraph 51). 
To kaže na težavo pri komunikaciji znotraj konzorcijev, ki jo verjetno poslabšuje veliko število udeležencev (glej odstavek 51).
25 See also the Expert Group on the future of Networks of Excellence, op.cit, Section 3.3 (p. 
25 Glej tudi Expert Group on the future of Networks of Excellence, op. cit., oddelek 3.3 (str.
18) and Annex 3 (p. 
18) in Priloga 3 (str.
26 FIGURE 7 Do you feel you properly understood the differences between the main collaborative instruments (NoE and IP) when you selected which one to use for the proposal? 
26 DIAGRAM 7 Ali menite, da ste pravilno razumeli razlike med glavnimi instrumenti sodelovanja (mreže odličnosti in integrirani projekti), ko ste izbirali, katerega boste uporabili za predlog?
Succesful applicants Coordinators Participants Coordinators Participants Unsuccesful applicants Coordinators Participants Coordinators Participants ACTORS’ UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE AUDITED INSTRUMENTS’ ROLE NoE IP Yes, definitely Yes, somewhat No, somewhat not No, definitely not Yes, definitely Yes, somewhat No, somewhat not No, definitely not 86 % 11 % 0 % 3 % 75 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 53 % 33 % 8 % 6 % 67 % 33 % 0 % 0 % 84 % 13 % 3% 0% 60 % 20 % 20 % 0 % 62 % 25 % 12 % 2% 58 % 27 % 13 % 2 % Source: Survey conducted by the European Court of Auditors. 
Uspešni vlagatelji Koordinatorji Udeleženci Koordinatorji Udeleženci Neuspešni vlagatelji Koordinatorji Udeleženci Koordinatorji Udeleženci RAZUMEVANJE VLOGE REVIDIRANIH INSTRUMENTOV S STRANI AKTERJEV Mreže odličnosti Integrirani projekti Da, v celoti Da, deloma Ne, deloma ne Ne, sploh ne Da, v celoti Da, deloma Ne, deloma ne Ne, sploh ne Vir: Anketa, ki jo je izvedlo Evropsko računsko sodišče.
The legal provisions governing the instruments were spread across a range of legal texts26. 
Zakonske določbe, ki urejajo instrumente, so bile razpršene po več pravnih besedilih26.
At different stages decisions were taken by the Council and the European Parliament to set up the instruments and their specific objectives (stating in which programme areas they might be applied), or by the Commission concerning the provisions for implementing the instruments (specifying in particular the basic Community contribution mechanisms that were narrowly applicable to each instrument) and finally the model FP6 contract (specifying provisions for programme participants implementing indirect RTD actions in the form of specific instruments). The different applicable provisions were not always consistent. 
Na različnih stopnjah sta Svet in Evropski parlament sprejela odločitve o uvedbi instrumentov in njihovih posebnih ciljih (pri tem sta navedla, na katerih programskih področjih bi se lahko uporabljali), Komisija pa odločitve o določbah za izvajanje instrumentov (pri čemer je določila predvsem osnovne mehanizme plačevanja prispevkov Skupnosti, ki so veljali točno za vsak določen instrument) in nenazadnje o modelu pogodb za 6. OP (kjer je podrobno opredelila določbe za udeležence programov, ki izvajajo posredne dejavnosti RTR v obliki posebnih instrumentov).
Guidance was not complete when the first FP6 calls for proposals were launched in December 2002. 
Ko so bili decembra 2002 sproženi prvi razpisi za zbiranje predlogov za 6.
The delays affecting the preparation and publication of guidelines were traceable, ultimately, to the late adoption of model contracts. 
Končni razlog za zamude pri pripravi in objavi smernic je bilo pozno sprejetje modelov pogodb.
In response to the publication of the 2004 evaluation27, the Commission took corrective action aimed at differentiating between the instruments. 
Kot odgovor na objavo vrednotenja v letu 200427 je Komisija uvedla popravne ukrepe, katerih cilj je bil razlikovati med različnimi instrumenti.
This resulted in a better understanding of the nature of the instruments, but areas of misunderstanding persisted. 
Zaradi tega se je izboljšalo razumevanje narave instrumentov, vendar je na nekaterih področjih razumevanje ostalo napačno.
As a result, further guidance was provided on several aspects of FP6 project management not addressed by the initial programme guides28. 
Zato so bila zagotovljena dodatna navodila v zvezi z več vidiki upravljanja projektov v okviru 6. OP, ki v prvotnih programskih vodnikih28 niso bili obravnavani.
Average time-to-contract29 was about 13 months, to be compared with a duration of nine months for FP5 calls30. 
Povprečni čas za sklepanje pogodb29 je znašal približno 13 mesecev, v primerjavi z razpisi za 5.
As a result, consortia had no choice but to start projects before the contract had been signed. 
Zato konzorciji niso imeli druge izbire, kot da s projekti začnejo pred podpisom pogodbe.
This entailed a legal and financial risk for the beneficiaries, which is at odds with the objective of encouraging research activities. 
To je povzročilo pravno in finančno tveganje za upravičence, kar je v nasprotju s ciljem spodbujanja raziskovalnih dejavnosti.
On the other hand, the project scope (composition of the consortium, duration, work programme) was modified in several cases (11 out of 14 projects audited) at the initiative of the Commission during the negotiation process, without explicit reference to the objectives of the programme. 
Po drugi strani je bil obseg projekta (sestava konzorcija, trajanje, delovni program) med pogajalskim postopkom na pobudo Komisije v več primerih spremenjen (11 od 14 revidiranih projektov), ne da bi se to izrecno nanašalo na cilje programa.
26 See for example Annex III to Decision No 1513/2002/EC, Annex III to Council Decision 2002/834/EC (OJ L 294, 29.10.2002, p. 
26 Glej na primer Prilogo III k Sklepu št. 1513/2002/ES. Priloga III k Odločbi Sveta 2002/834/ ES (UL L 294, 29.10.2002, str.
1) and Regulation (EC) No 2321/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 
2321/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (UL L 355, 30.12.2002, str.
27 See Evaluation of the effectiveness of the New Instruments of Framework Programme VI, op. cit. 
27 Glej Evaluation of the effectiveness of the New Instruments of Framework Programme VI, op. cit.
28 For example, the guide on competitive calls for NoEs and IPs appeared in November 2004. 
28 Na primer vodnik o konkurenčnih razpisih za mreže odličnosti in integrirane projekte je bil objavljen novembra 2004.
The guide on Intellectual Property rights appeared in March 2004. 
Vodnik o pravicah intelektualne lastnine je bil objavljen marca 2004.
29 Time to contract is defined as the time elapsed between a call closing date and a contract signature. 
29 Čas za sklepanje pogodb je opredeljen kot čas, ki mine med končnim datumom razpisa za zbiranje predlogov in podpisom pogodbe.
30 See page 60 of Special Report No 1/2004 on the management of ‘indirect’ RTD actions under the fifth framework programme (OJ C 99, 23.4.2004). 
30 Glej stran 60 Posebnega poročila št.
27 Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? FEWER AND LARGER PROJECTS BUT STILL A LARGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 51. 
8/2009 – „Mreže odličnosti“ in „integrirani projekti“ v raziskovalni politiki Skupnosti: ali so dosegli svoje cilje? PROJEKTOV JE MANJ IN SO VEČJI, VENDAR ŠE VEDNO Z VELIKIM ŠTEVILOM UDELEŽENCEV 51.
Although there is not a ‘once size fits all’ number of participants, it is clear that the larger the number of participants, the more difficult the project is to manage (organisational constraints, costs). 
Čeprav zaželeno število udeležencev ni povsod enako, je jasno, da je pri večjem številu udeležencev upravljanje projekta težje (organizacijske omejitve, stroški). Pri 6.
However, on average, the number of participants per contract is higher in FP6 (NoEs involved on average 30 participants and IPs around 25 partners). 
OP povprečno število udeležencev na pogodbo večje (v mrežah odličnosti je sodelovalo povprečno 30 udeležencev, v integriranih projektih pa približno 25 partnerjev).
Under FP7 the number of participants has been reduced (both NoEs and IP-like collaborative projects involve on average slightly less than 20 partners). 
OP se je število udeležencev zmanjšalo (v mrežah odličnosti in skupnih projektih, podobnih integriranim projektom, sodeluje povprečno nekoliko manj kot 20 partnerjev).
WEAKNESSES IN PROJECT MONITORING 52. 
SLABOSTI PRI SPREMLJANJU PROJEKTOV 52.
All indirect RTD actions implemented under FP6 were subject to periodic technical monitoring by the Commission. 
Komisija je periodično izvajala tehnično spremljanje vseh posrednih dejavnosti RTR, ki se izvajajo v okviru 6.
For Networks of Excellence and Integrated Projects, technical monitoring should be supported by project reviews carried out by independent experts (see footnote 11). 
OP. Tehnično spremljanje mrež odličnosti in integriranih projektov bi moralo biti podprto s pregledi projektov, ki jih izvedejo neodvisni strokovnjaki (glej opombo 11).
In particular, the Court found that two Commission departments had failed to fully comply with the legal requirement to have annual project reviews performed by independent experts. 
Sodišče je predvsem ugotovilo, da dva oddelka Komisije nista v celoti spoštovala pravne zahteve, da morajo letne preglede projektov opraviti neodvisni strokovnjaki.
Where the Commission’s departments did meet this requirement, harmonisation of project reviews was insufficient to allow the effective use of review results as a performance indicator, at both project and programme levels. 28 Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
V primerih, ko so oddelki Komisije to zahtevo spoštovali, je bila uskladitev pregledov projektov preveč pomanjkljiva, da bi tako na ravni projekta kot programa omogočala uspešno uporabo rezultatov pregledov kot kazalnika uspešnosti. 28 Posebno poročilo št. 8/2009 – „Mreže odličnosti“ in „integrirani projekti“ v raziskovalni politiki Skupnosti: ali so dosegli svoje cilje?
STIMULATION OF RTD INVESTMENT 54. 
SPODBUJANJE NALOŽB V RTR 54.
The total value of RTD investment carried out under FP6 thematic priorities amounted to 19 billion euro. 
Skupna vrednost naložb v RTR, izvršenih v okviru tematskih prednostnih nalog 6. OP, je znašala 19 milijard EUR.
The EU budget funded 63 % of this investment. 
Iz proračuna EU se je financiralo 63 % teh naložb.
The private sector (including SMEs) contributed up to 22 %. 
Zasebni sektor (vključno z MSP) je prispeval največ 22 %.
The remaining 15 % was funded by national public sources31. 
Preostalih 15 % so financirali nacionalni javni viri31.
MORE EU FUNDS FOR RELATIVELY LESS PARTICIPANTS’ RTD INVESTMENT 55. 
VEČ FINANČNIH SREDSTEV EU ZA RELATIVNO MANJ NALOŽB UDELEŽENCEV V RTR 55.
The comparison of FP6 (thematic priorities) with its predecessor (FP5 thematic programmes32) shows that total investment and EU contribution have increased in absolute terms (by 8 % and 15 %, respectively). 
OP (tematske prednostne naloge) z njegovim predhodni-kom (tematski programi v 5. OP32) kaže, da so se skupne naložbe in prispevek EU v absolutnem smislu povečali (za 8 % oziroma 15 %).
However, the ratio ‘Total investment/EU contribution’ has declined from 1,69 euro (FP5) to 1,59 euro (FP6). 
Vendar se je razmerje med skupnimi naložbami in prispevkom EU zmanjšalo z 1,69 EUR (5. OP) na 1,59 EUR (6. OP).
The main reason is that the participation of the private sector in general has declined when compared to FP5 (see Figure 6). 
Glavni razlog je, da se je v primerjavi s 5. OP udeležba zasebnega sektorja na splošno zmanjšala (glej diagram 6).
The Court’s audit highlighted a risk of ‘low-profile’ commitment of public bodies participating in the programme. 
Pri reviziji, ki jo je izvedlo Sodišče, se je pokazalo tveganje zaradi majhne zavezanosti javnih organov, ki sodelujejo v programu.
Cases were found (12 out of 14 projects assessed) where the volume of own resources was much lower (between 30 % and 80 % less) than the costs actually reimbursed by the Commission33. 
Ugotovljeni so bili primeri (12 od 14 ocenjenih projektov), kjer je bila količina lastnih sredstev veliko nižja (med 30 % in 80 % manj) od stroškov, ki jih je Komisija dejansko povrnila33.
In such cases, the stimulation of investment is reduced, with the possibility that EU funds simply substitute participants’ own resources. 
V takih primerih se spodbujanje naložb zmanjša in obstaja možnost, da finančna sredstva EU preprosto nadomestijo lastna sredstva udeležencev.
31 The only data available for analysis correspond to the contractually agreed estimated eligible costs and the related Community contribution. 
31 Edini podatki, ki so na razpolago za analizo, ustrezajo pogodbeno dogovorjenim ocenjenim upravičenim stroškom in s tem povezanemu prispevku Skupnosti.
The lack of more detailed information, in particular the total investment actually carried out as a result of the participation in the programme, makes impossible any further analysis. 
Vsako nadaljnjo analizo onemogoča pomanjkanje podrobnejših informacij, zlasti o skupni naložbi, ki je bila dejansko izvršena zaradi sodelovanja v programu.
32 FP5 thematic programmes are the predecessors of FP6 thematic priorities. 
OP so predhodniki tematskih prednostnih nalog v okviru 6.
They were four: ‘Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources’, ‘User-friendly Information Society’, ‘Competitive and Sustainable Growth’ and ‘Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development’. 
Tematski programi so bili štirje: „Kakovost življenja in upravljanje življenjskih virov, „Uporabniku prijazna informacijska družba“, „Konkurenčna in trajnostna rast“ ter „Energija, okolje in trajnostni razvoj“.
33 According to the model applied by a significant number of public bodies (mainly universities), participants should allocate a volume of own resources equivalent to those funded by the Community. 
33 Glede na model, ki ga uporablja veliko število javnih organov (večinoma univerze), bi morali udeleženci dodeliti količino lastnih sredstev, ki je enakovredna količini sredstev, ki jih financira Skupnost.
In this way the principle of co-financing would be satisfied. 
Tako bi bilo zadoščeno načelu sofinanciranja.
However, this condition was not adequately monitored by the Commission. 29 Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
Vendar Komisija ni ustrezno spremljala tega pogoja. 29 Posebno poročilo št. 8/2009 – „Mreže odličnosti“ in „integrirani projekti“ v raziskovalni politiki Skupnosti: ali so dosegli svoje cilje?
30 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57. The Court recalls the lack in FP 6 of an explicit intervention logic, explaining how the different instruments and programmes were supposed to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and to encourage it to become more competitive at international level34. 
Sodišče ponovno opozarja na pomanjkanje jasno izražene logike posega pri 6. OP, ki bi pojasnjevala, kako naj bi različni instrumenti in programi krepili znanstvene in tehnološke temelje industrije Skupnosti ter jo spodbujali, da postane bolj konkurenčna na mednarodni ravni34.
The absence of SMART objectives and performance indicators limits significantly the assessment of the contribution of specific instruments and activities to the RTD objectives, thus undermining the basis for sound monitoring and evaluation (see paragraphs 19 and 20). 
Odsotnost ciljev SMART in kazalnikov uspešnosti precej omejuje oceno prispevka posebnih instrumentov in dejavnosti k ciljem RTR in tako ogroža osnovo za dobro spremljanje in vrednotenje (glej odstavka 19 in 20).
34 See paragraphs 22 to 37 of Special Report No 9/2007. 
34 Glej odstavka 22 in 37 Posebnega poročila št. 9/2007.
RECOMMENDATION NO 1 DEVELOP AN EXPLICIT INTERVENTION LOGIC The Court recalls its previous recommendation that spending programmes should be based upon an explicit intervention logic, linking the instruments to realistic objectives. 
PRIPOROČILO ŠT. 1 RAZVITI JASNO IZRAŽENO LOGIKO POSEGA Sodišče ponovno opozarja na svoje prejšnje priporočilo, da morajo programi porabe temeljiti na jasno izraženi logiki posega, ki povezuje instrumente s stvarnimi cilji.
The Court found that the FP6 instruments audited had promoted effective research collaboration between project participants. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so revidirani instrumenti 6. OP spodbujali uspešno raziskovalno sodelovanje med udeleženci projekta.
However, while all projects were qualified as ‘excellent’ at the time of their selection by the Commission, not more than one third of them kept a rating between ‘good to excellent’ after implementation (see paragraphs 22 to 27). 
Toda čeprav so bili v času, ko je Komisija izbrala projekte, vsi uvrščeni med „odlične“, jih je po začetku izvajanja največ tretjina obdržala oceno „dobro do odlično“ (glej odstavke 22 do 27).
The assessment of NoEs’ and IPs’ specific objectives highlights a contrasting picture. 
Ocena posebnih ciljev mrež odličnosti in integriranih projektov kaže nasprotujočo sliko.
Notwithstanding their success in promoting research collaboration and projects of reasonable quality, none of the NoEs audited achieved the specific objective of lasting integration among networked partners, thus making future collaboration subject to continued public support. 
Kljub uspehu, ki so ga revidirane mreže odličnosti dosegle pri spodbujanju raziskovalnega sodelovanja in projektov primerne kakovosti, nobena od njih ni dosegla cilja trajnega povezovanja med partnerji v mreži, zato je bilo prihodnje sodelovanje odvisno od nadaljnje javne podpore.
Among the difficulties there was the reluctance of many organisations to engage in a long-term commitment, but also the fact that the maximal duration of five years proved not to be realistic, particularly in areas where lasting integration can only be achieved progressively. 
Ena izmed težav je bila nepripravljenost mnogih organizacij, da sprejmejo dolgoročno zavezanost, pa tudi dejstvo, da se je pokazalo, da najdaljše možno obdobje trajanja petih let ni stvarno, zlasti na področjih, kjer je trajno povezovanje možno doseči le postopoma.
This raises the question as to the conditions under which it is justified to continue their financing beyond the initial duration, under the ongoing Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) (see paragraphs 29 to 35). 
Zato se zastavlja vprašanje o pogojih, pod katerimi jih je upravičeno financirati dlje, kot je bilo prvotno predvideno v okviru tekočega 7. okvirnega programa (7. OP) (glej odstavke 29 do 35).
IPs have, in general, achieved the objectives pursued in their research field. 
Integrirani projekti so na splošno dosegli zastavljene cilje na svojem področju raziskav.
Thanks to a longer duration and an increased number of participants, they have mobilised a significant volume of resources. 
Zaradi daljšega trajanja in večjega števila udeležencev so mobilizirali pomembno količino virov.
However, IPs have not succeeded in attracting additional public and private funding. (see paragraphs 36 to 38). 
Vendar integriranim projektom ni uspelo pritegniti dodatnega javnega in zasebnega financiranja (glej odstavke 36 do 38).
31 RECOMMENDATION NO 2 ASSESS THE PERFORMANCE OF NEW INSTRUMENTS COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL RESEARCH COLLABORATION The Commission should consider whether NoEs and IP-like collaborative projects, which continue to receive funding under the current Framework Programme (FP7), have been given realistic objectives and provide significant advantages as compared with traditional instruments for research collaboration. 
31 PRIPOROČILO ŠT. 2 OCENITI USPEŠNOST NOVIH INSTRUMENTOV V PRIMERJAVI S TRADICIONALNIM RAZISKOVALNIM SODELOVANJEM Komisija bi morala razmisliti, ali so bili za mreže odličnosti in skupne projekte, podobne integriranim projektom, ki še naprej prejemajo financiranje v okviru tekočega okvirnega programa (7. OP), določeni stvarni cilji, in ali v primerjavi s tradicionalnimi instrumenti za raziskovalno sodelovanje zagotavljajo bistvene prednosti.