natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
During 2014, the ECA produced the following special reports in this area. • Lessons from the European Commission’s development of the second generation Schengen information system (SIS II) (3/2014) — examined why the Commission delivered SIS II over 6 years later than planned and at eight times the initial budget estimates. 
Leta 2014 je Sodišče za to področje pripravilo naslednji posebni poročili: • Izkušnje, pridobljene pri razvoju schengenskega informacijskega sistema druge generacije (SIS II), za katerega je bila odgovorna Evropska komisija (3/2014) – V poročilu je bilo preučeno, zakaj je Komisija uvedla SIS II več kot šest let pozneje, kot je bilo predvideno, in s proračunom, ki je bil osemkrat višji od prvotno ocenjenega.
It examined whether there was a robust business case for SIS II throughout the project, which took into account major changes to the costs and expected benefits. 
Preučilo se je tudi, ali je za SIS II med celotnim trajanjem projekta obstajala dobra projektna študija, pri kateri so bile upoštevane velike spremembe stroškov in pričakovanih koristi.
The audit found that the delays and overspend‐ ing occurred because of weaknesses in the Commission’s management. 
Z revizijo je bilo ugotovljeno, da je do zamud in prekomerne porabe prišlo zaradi slabosti pri upravljanju s strani Komisije.
The initial deadline was unrealistic and the Commission was not able to manage the main development contract effectively before 2009. 
Prvotni rok je bil nerealen in Komisija pred letom 2009 ni mogla uspešno upravljati glavne pogodbe o razvoju sistema.
The initial estimates of the costs significantly underestimated the true scale of the investment necessary. 
V prvotnih ocenah stroškov je bil resnični obseg potrebnih naložb močno podcenjen.
The full cost of SIS II amounted to €189 million, compared to €23 million initially planned, plus an estimated €330 million for national systems. 
Celotni stroški SIS II so znašali 189 milijonov EUR za centralni sistem (prvotno naj bi znašali 23 milijonov EUR) in glede na ocene še 330 milijonov EUR za nacionalne sisteme.
The Commis‐ sion did not fully demonstrate that SIS II provided the best value for money for the organisation. 
Komisija ni v celoti dokazala, da je SIS II organizaciji zagotovil najboljše razmerje med kakovostjo in ceno.
It did however learn lessons during the first part of the project and has already applied some of them in preparing other large‐scale IT projects. 
Vendar pa je v prvem delu projekta Komisija pridobila izkušnje in jih nekaj že uporabila pri pripravi drugih obsežnih projektov IT.
The Schengen information system is used by border guards, police, customs, visa and judicial authorities throughout the Schengen area. 
Schengenski informacijski sistem uporabljajo mejni policisti, policijski in carinski organi, organi, pristojni za izdajo vizumov, ter pravosodni organi na celotnem schengenskem območju.
It contains infor‐ mation (alerts) on persons who may have been involved in a serious crime or may not have the right to enter or stay in the EU. 
Vsebuje informacije (razpise ukrepov) o osebah, ki so morda sodelovale pri težjih kaznivih dejanjih ali morda nimajo pravice do vstopa ali bivanja v EU.
It also contains alerts on missing persons and lost or stolen property. • The External Borders Fund (EBF) has fos‐ tered financial solidarity but requires better measurement of results and needs to provide further EU added value (15/2014) — assessed the EBF’s effectiveness and EU added value and to what extent the objectives of its co‐financed projects and programmes were achieved. 
Vsebuje tudi razpise ukrepov v zvezi s pogrešanimi osebami ter izgubljeno ali ukradeno lastnino. • Sklad za zunanje meje je okrepil finančno solidarnost, vendar je treba izboljšati merjenje rezultatov in zagotoviti nadaljnjo dodano vrednost EU (15/2014) – V poročilu so bili preučeni uspešnost Sklada za zunanje meje, dodana vrednost EU in obseg dosege ciljev sofinanciranih projektov in programov.
The audit found that the EBF has contributed to the management of the EU’s external borders and fostered financial solidarity among Member States. 
Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da je Sklad za zunanje meje prispeval k upravljanju zunanjih meja EU in okrepil finančno solidarnost med državami članicami.
But further EU added value was limited and the overall result could not be measured owing to weaknesses in monitoring by the re‐ sponsible authorities and serious deficiencies by the Commission and the Member States in their evaluations. 
Kljub temu je bila nadaljnja dodana vrednost EU omejena, skupnega rezultata pa zaradi slabosti pri spremljanju, ki so ga izvajali odgovorni organi, in resnih pomanjkljivosti pri ocenjevanjih, ki so jih izvajale Komisija in države članice, ni bilo mogoče izmeriti.
Member States’ programmes were not embedded in national strategies for border control and visas and lacked SMART objectives and measurable indicators. 
Programi držav članic niso bili vključeni v nacionalne strategije za mejno kontrolo in izdajanje vizumov, prav tako pa v njih niso bili navedeni cilji SMART in merljivi kazalniki.
Project selection procedures did not ensure that Member States’ actual needs were met. 
Postopki izbire projektov niso zagotovili izpolnjevanja dejanskih potreb držav članic.
Inadequate procurement procedures in Member States put sound financial management at risk. 
Neustrezni postopki javnega naročanja v državah članicah ogrožajo dobro finančno poslovodenje.
There were serious weak‐ nesses in management of the fund in key Mem‐ ber States — Greece, Spain, Italy and, for the early funding years, Malta. 
Ugotovljene so bile resne slabosti pri upravljanju sklada v ključnih državah članicah (Grčiji, Španiji, Italiji, v prvih letih financiranja pa tudi na Malti).
As the main EU financial instrument in support of external border management, the EBF delivered €1.9 billion over the 2007–13 period. 
Sklad za zunanje meje je glavni finančni instrument EU za podporo upravljanju zunanjih meja, ki je v obdobju 2007–2013 obsegal 1,9 milijarde EUR.
Its overall aim was to help current and prospective Schengen states ensure uniform, effective and efficient controls at their common external borders. 
Njegov glavni cilj je bil pomagati sedanjim in morebitnim novim državam schengenskega območja pri zagotavljanju enotne, uspešne in učinkovite kontrole na njihovih skupnih zunanjih mejah.
Our activities 27 Global Europe The EU’s activities in the field of external relations focus on enlargement, enhancing the stability, security and prosperity of its neighbourhood, working actively to support sustainable development at the international level and measures to promote global political governance and ensure strategic and civilian security. 
Naše dejavnosti 27 Globalna Evropa Dejavnosti EU na področju zunanjih odnosov so usmerjene v širitev, krepitev stabilnosti, varnosti in blaginje v njeni soseščini, dejavno podporo trajnostnemu razvoju na mednarodni ravni, ukrepe za spodbujanje globalnega političnega upravljanja ter zagotavljanje strateške in civilne varnosti.
The EU earmarked €66 billion — at current prices — for spending on these objectives for the 2014–20 period, representing 6 % of the total budget. 
EU je za porabo za te cilje v obdobju 2014–2020 namenila 66 milijard EUR (v tekočih cenah), kar je 6 % celotnega proračuna.
Most spending is managed directly by the Commission, either from its headquarters or through its delegations. 
Večino porabe upravlja neposredno Komisija na svojem sedežu ali prek svojih delegacij.
Some aid is also jointly managed with international organisations. 
Del pomoči se upravlja skupaj z mednarodnimi organizacijami.
During 2014, the ECA produced the following special reports in this area. • The establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) (11/2014) — assessed if the establishment of the EEAS was adequately prepared, its resources were prioritised, organ‐ ised and allocated efficiently and whether it has coordinated effectively with the Commission and the Member States. 
Leta 2014 je Sodišče za to področje pripravilo naslednja posebna poročila: • Ustanovitev Evropske službe za zunanje delovanje (11/2014) – V poročilu je bilo preučeno, ali je bila ustanovitev Evropske službe za zunanje delovanje (ESZD) ustrezno pripravljena, ali so bili viri ESZD prednostno razvrščeni, organizirani in dodeljeni na učinkovit način ter ali je bilo usklajevanje ESZD s Komisijo in državami članicami uspešno.
The audit found that the EEAS should increase its efficiency and do more for the EU and its citizens. 
Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da bi morala ESZD izboljšati svojo učinkovitost in storiti več za EU in njene državljane.
The establishment of the EEAS was rushed and inadequately prepared. 
Ustanovitev ESZD je potekala v naglici in brez ustreznih priprav.
Weaknesses in the priori‐ tisation, organisation and allocation of resources reduced its efficiency. 
Slabosti pri prednostnem razvrščanju, organizaciji in dodelitvi virov so zmanjšale njeno učinkovitost.
Coordination between the EEAS and the Commission was only partly effective, mainly due to ineffective cooperation mechanisms and a rigid financial and administra‐ tive framework of the delegations. 
Usklajevanje med ESZD in Komisijo je bilo le delno uspešno, zlasti zaradi neuspešnih mehanizmov sodelovanja in togega finančnega in upravnega okvira na ravni delegacij.
Coordination with Member States can be developed further to exploit synergies such as information sharing or co‐location, and consular services, including protection of EU citizens. 
Usklajevanje z državami članicami bi bilo mogoče še razviti, da bi izkoristili sinergije, kot je izmenjava informacij ali kolo-kacija, in konzularne storitve, vključno z zaščito državljanov EU.
The EEAS is headquartered in Brussels and has a global network of 140 delegations. 
ESZD ima sedež v Bruslju in obsega svetovno mrežo 140 delegacij.
For 2014, the EEAS budget was €519 million, split between head‐ quarters (41 %) and delegations (59 %). • EU support for rehabilitation following the earthquake in Haiti (13/2014) — examined whether EU support for rehabilitation of the country was well designed and implemented and if the Commission properly linked the provision of relief with rehabilitation efforts and develop‐ ment aid. 
Proračun ESZD za leto 2014 je znašal 519 milijonov EUR in je razdeljen med sedež (41 %) in delegacije (59 %). • Podpora EU za sanacijo po potresu na Haitiju (13/2014) – V poročilu je bilo preučeno, ali je bila podpora EU za sanacijo na Haitiju dobro zasnovana in izvedena ter ali je Komisija ustrezno povezala zagotavljanje nujne pomoči s prizadevanji za sanacijo in razvojno pomočjo.
The audit found that while EU support for re‐ habilitation after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti was well designed overall and addressed Haiti’s major needs, the programmes were not implemented effectively enough and the link between relief, rehabilitation and development was insufficient. 
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je bila podpora za sanacijo po potresu na Haitiju leta 2010 na splošno dobro zasnovana in je obravnavala glavne potrebe te države, vendar izvajanje programov ni bilo dovolj uspešno, nujna pomoč, sanacija in razvoj pa niso bili dovolj povezani.
Most of the programmes examined delivered — or were likely to deliver — their planned outputs, although almost all experienced delays. 
Pri večini preučenih programov so bili načrtovani izložki doseženi ali pa je bilo verjetno, da bodo doseženi, čeprav so skoraj pri vseh programih nastale zamude.
While the Commission was well aware of the difficult context, it did not sufficiently manage some sig‐ nificant risks to the implementation and achieve‐ ment of its programme objectives. 
Komisija se je sicer dobro zavedala težavnosti razmer, vendar ni dovolj obvladovala nekaterih velikih tveganj za izvajanje in doseganje ciljev programov.
Programmes were monitored but the Commission and the EEAS did not take timely action to strengthen the resources of the EU delegation in Haiti, which had insufficient capacity to perform on‐the‐spot visits. 
Programi so se spremljali, vendar Komisija in ESZD nista pravočasno ukrepali, da bi povečali vire delegacije EU na Haitiju, ki ni imela dovolj zmogljivosti za obiske na kraju samem.
In March 2010, 55 donors pledged $5.4 billion of rehabilitation and development for the 2010–12 period and a further $3.0 billion for 2013 and beyond. 
Marca 2010 je 55 donatorjev za sanacijo in razvoj obljubilo 5,4 milijarde USD za obdobje 2010–2012 in še dodatne 3,0 milijarde USD za obdobje od leta 2013 naprej.
The EU was one of the main donors, mak‐ ing a single pledge of €1.2 billion. 
EU je bila ena od glavnih donatoric, saj se je zavezala, da bo prispevala skupaj 1,2 milijarde EUR.
Our activities 28 • The effectiveness of blending regional invest‐ ment facility grants with financial institution loans to support EU external policies (16/2014) — examined the set‐up and management of the investment facilities and whether the use of blending yielded the intended benefits. 
Naše dejavnosti 28 • Uspešnost kombiniranja nepovratnih sredstev regionalnih naložbenih instrumentov s posojili finančnih institucij pri podpori zunanjim politikam EU (16/2014) – V poročilu so bili preučeni vzpostavitev in upravljanje naložbenih instrumentov ter to, ali so bile z uporabo kombiniranja virov sredstev dosežene predvidene koristi.
The audit gave a positive verdict on the set‐up and general effectiveness of blending regional investment facility grants with financial institu‐ tion loans to support EU external policies, while pointing out a number of key issues which need to be urgently addressed. 
Pri reviziji sta bila vzpostavitev in splošna uspešnost kombiniranja nepovratnih sredstev regionalnih naložbenih instrumentov s posojili finančnih institucij pri podpori zunanjim politikam EU pozitivno ocenjena, vendar so bila poudarjena tudi številna ključna vprašanja, ki zahtevajo nujno obravnavo.
While the facilities were well set up, the potential benefits of blend‐ ing were not fully realised due to Commission management shortcomings. 
Instrumenti so bili dobro vzpostavljeni, vendar potencialne koristi kombiniranja zaradi pomanjkljivega upravljanja s strani Komisije niso bile v celoti dosežene.
For nearly half of the projects examined there was insufficient evi‐ dence to conclude that the grants were justified. 
Pri skoraj polovici preučenih projektov ni bilo dovolj dokazov za ugotovitev, ali so bila nepovratna sredstva upravičena.
In some cases the investments would likely have been made without the EU contribution. 
V nekaterih primerih bi bile naložbe verjetno izvedene tudi brez prispevka EU.
The Commission should ensure that grant allocation is based on a thorough, documented assess‐ ment of the added value in terms of achieving EU development, neighbourhood and enlargement objectives. 
Komisija bi morala zagotoviti, da dodeljevanje nepovratnih sredstev temelji na temeljiti in dokumentirani oceni dodane vrednosti pri doseganju ciljev EU na področjih razvoja, sosedstva in širitve.
Since 2007 the Commission has created eight re‐ gional investment facilities. 
Od leta 2007 je Komisija vzpostavila osem regionalnih naložbenih instrumentov.
These combine grants funded by the EDFs and the EU general budget with loans, mainly from European development‐finance institutions. 
Ti kombinirajo nepovratna sredstva, ki se financirajo iz ERS in splošnega proračuna EU, s posojili, ki jih zagotavljajo zlasti evropske institucije za financiranje razvoja.
Blending aims to address investment opportunities, usually major infrastructure projects, which could be viable but do not attract sufficient funding from market sources. • Can the EU’s Centres of Excellence initiative contribute effectively to mitigating chemi‐ cal, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) risks from outside the EU? 
Namen kombiniranja virov sredstev je obravnavanje naložbenih priložnosti, običajno ključnih infrastrukturnih projektov, ki bi lahko bili ekonomsko smiselni, vendar ne privabljajo dovolj sredstev iz tržnih virov. • Ali lahko pobuda za centre odličnosti EU uspešno prispeva k blaženju kemičnih, bioloških, radioloških in jedrskih tveganj iz držav zunaj EU?
(17/2014) — assessed whether the initiative was based on a sound analysis of the situation prior to 2010, whether the organisational set‐up of the initiative was appropriate to meet identified challenges, and whether an appropriate management system was in place and operational. 
(17/2014) – V poročilu je bilo ocenjeno, ali pobuda temelji na temeljiti analizi položaja pred letom 2010, ali je bila organizacijska ureditev pobude ustrezna za spoprijemanje z ugotovljenimi izzivi, ali je vzpostavljen ustrezen sistem upravljanja in ali ta sistem deluje.
The audit was generally positive about the con‐ tribution that the centres of excellence make to mitigate CBRN risks. 
Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da centri odličnosti na splošno prispevajo k blaženju kemičnih, bioloških, radioloških in jedrskih (KBRJ) tveganj.
The initiative is in line with the priorities established in the European security strategy and the EU strategy against the prolifer‐ ation of weapons of mass destruction. 
Pobuda je v skladu s prednostnimi nalogami, opredeljenimi v evropski varnostni strategiji in strategiji EU proti širjenju orožja za množično uni-čevanje.
It provides for the involvement of all stakeholders in the partner countries, enhancing sustainability of the actions taken. 
Omogoča sodelovanje vseh deležnikov v partnerskih državah, kar povečuje trajnost sprejetih ukrepov.
The organisational set‐up is gener‐ ally appropriate, but its complexity contributed to delays in getting projects up and running. 
Organizacijska ureditev pobude je na splošno primerna, vendar je njena zapletenost prispevala k zamudam pri vzpostavitvi in izvajanju projektov.
The Centres of Excellence initiative refers to the establishment of regional platforms in different regions of the world to tackle CBRN risks. 
Pobuda za centre odličnosti se nanaša na vzpostavitev regionalnih platform v različnih regijah sveta za blaženje KBRJ tveganj.
It is the single biggest measure in the long‐term component of the Instrument for Stability and was allocated €100 million for the 2010–13 period. 
Je največji posamezni ukrep dolgoročne komponente instrumenta za stabilnost s proračunom v višini 100 milijonov EUR za obdobje 2010 –2013.
Our activities 29 • EuropeAid’s evaluation and results‐oriented monitoring (ROM) systems (18/2014) — exam‐ ined whether these systems are reliable, appro‐ priately organised and resourced, ensure the pro‐ vision of relevant and robust findings and ensure that maximum use is made of the findings. 
Naše dejavnosti 29 • Sistem vrednotenja in sistem v rezultate usmerjenega spremljanja, ki ju uporablja EuropeAid (18/2014) – V poročilu je bilo preučeno, ali sta sistema zanesljiva in ustrezno organizirana in ali so viri, dodeljeni zanju, ustrezni ter ali sistema zagotavljata relevantne in zanesljive ugotovitve in njihovo kar najboljšo uporabo.
The audit was critical of the reliability of these systems. 
Glede zanesljivosti teh sistemov je bilo revizijsko mnenje kritično.
The evaluation and ROM functions are well organised but more attention should be paid to the efficient use of resources. 
Funkciji vrednotenja in v rezultate usmerjenega spremljanja(ROM) sta dobro organizirani, vendar bi bilo treba nameniti več pozornosti učinkoviti uporabi virov.
The systems do not provide enough information on the results achieved and fail to ensure maximum use of the findings. 
Sistema ne zagotavljata dovolj informacij o doseženih rezultatih in ne zagotavljata največje možne uporabe ugotovitev.
The evaluations of projects and pro‐ grammes which are organised by Commission delegations and carried out in partner countries are unsatisfactorily managed: overall supervision is inadequate, the amount of resources used is unclear and access to the results is lacking. 
Vrednotenje projektov in programov, ki jih organizirajo delegacije Komisije in se izvajajo v partnerskih državah, se upravlja nezadovolji-vo: splošni nadzor ni ustrezen, višina porabljenih virov ni jasna, dostop do rezultatov pa tudi ni omogočen.
Two of the key elements of the accountability framework operated by the European Commission’s Directorate‐General for Development and Coop‐ eration — EuropeAid are its evaluation and ROM systems. 
Dva izmed glavnih elementov okvira odgovornosti, ki ga je vzpostavil Generalni direktorat Komisije za razvoj in sodelovanje (EuropeAid), sta sistem vrednotenja in sistem ROM.
The total annual cost of the systems is esti‐ mated at €34–€38 million. 
Skupni letni stroški zanju po ocenah znašajo 34–38 milijonov EUR.
The annual spending on development which these systems cover is estimated to be some €8 billion. • EU pre‐accession assistance to Serbia (19/2014) — examined whether the Commission managed pre‐accession support to Serbia during the 2007–13 period effectively and its support for the key area of governance. 
Letna poraba za razvoj, ki ga sistema zajemata, po ocenah znaša približno 8 milijard EUR. • Predpristopna pomoč EU Srbiji (19/2014) – V poročilu je bilo preučeno, ali je Komisija v obdobju 2007–2013 uspešno upravljala predpristopno pomoč Srbiji, ocenjena pa je bila tudi njena podpora ključnemu področju upravljanja.
The audit found that EU support of €1.2 billion over the 2007–13 period was globally effective in preparing Serbia for EU membership. 
Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila podpora EU v višini 1,2 milijarde EUR v obdobju 2007–2013 na splošno uspešna pri pripravi Srbije na članstvo v EU.
The funding from the Instrument for Pre‐Accession Assistance (IPA), along with other forms of support, helped Serbia to implement social and economic reforms and to improve its public finance management. 
Financiranje v okviru instrumenta za predpristopno pomoč (IPA) skupaj z drugimi oblikami podpore je Srbiji pomagalo pri izvajanju socialne in gospodarske reforme ter izboljševanju vodenja javnih financ v državi.
Based on experience gained in other IPA benefi‐ ciary countries, the Commission is increasing its emphasis on governance issues when planning financial and non‐financial assistance to Serbia. 
Na podlagi izkušenj, pridobljenih v drugih državah upravičenkah IPA, Komisija pri načrtovanju svoje finančne in nefinančne pomoči Srbiji čedalje bolj poudarja vprašanja, povezana z upravljanjem.
The Commission was effective in managing non‐financial assistance to Serbia in the area of governance and the fight against corruption. 
Komisija je uspešno upravljala nefinančno pomoč Srbiji na področju upravljanja in boja proti korupciji.
The Commission was also effective in preparing Ser‐ bia for decentralised management of EU funds, but only in the limited sphere of the IPA manage‐ ment structures. 
Uspešna je bila tudi pri pripravi Srbije na decentralizirano upravljanje sredstev EU, vendar le na omejenem področju upravljavskih struktur IPA.
Governance, identified by the Commission as the most challenging area for Serbia, received a quar‐ ter of the IPA funding, which amounted to around €170 million per year between 2007 and 2013. 
Upravljanje, ki je po mnenju Komisije za Srbijo področje z največjimi izzivi, je prejelo četrtino sredstev IPA, kar je za obdobje 2007–2013 znašalo približno 170 milijonov EUR letno.
The EU complements the IPA funding with some non‐financial means to help Serbia prepare for EU membership. 
EU financiranje iz IPA dopolnjuje z nekaterimi nefinančnimi sredstvi za pomoč Srbiji pri pripravi na članstvo v EU.
Our activities 30 Administration The administrative expenditure of the EU’s institutions, agencies and other bodies covers staff costs, such as salaries and pensions, and spending on buildings, equipment, energy, communications and information tech‐ nology. 
Naše dejavnosti 30 Uprava Upravni odhodki institucij, agencij in drugih organov EU se nanašajo na stroške dela, kot so plače in pokojnine, ter na porabo za zgradbe, opremo, energijo, komunikacije in informacijsko tehnologijo.
The spending earmarked for this area for 2014–20 — at current prices — amounts to €70 billion, 6 % of the total EU budget. 
Za porabo na tem področju je za obdobje 2014–2020 namenjenih 70 milijard EUR (v tekočih cenah), kar je 6 % celotnega proračuna EU.