natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2 
1306/2013): • trajnostna proizvodnja hrane, s poudarkom na kmetijskih dohodkih, kmetijski produktivnosti in stabilnosti cen, • trajnostno upravljanje naravnih virov in ukrepanje na področju podnebnih sprememb, s poudarkom na emisijah toplogrednih plinov, biotski raznovrstnosti, prsti in vodah, ter • uravnotežen teritorialni razvoj, s poudarkom na zaposlovanju na podeželju, rasti in revščini na podeželskih območjih. Cilji SKP za reformo po letu 2020 (iz sporočila Komisije Prihodnost preskrbe s hrano in kmetijstva): • ustvariti podlago za pameten in odporen kmetijski sektor, • okrepiti skrb za okolje in podnebne ukrepe ter prispevati k doseganju okoljskih in podnebnih ciljev EU, • krepiti družbeno-ekonomsko tkivo podeželskih območij.
2 
EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUKSEMBURG Tel. +352 4398-1 Vprašanja: eca.europa.eu/sl/Pages/ContactForm.aspx Spletišče: eca.europa.eu Twitter: @EUAuditors ©Evropska unija, 2018.
2018 A contribution to simplification of EU research programme beyond Horizon 2020 Briefing Paper March 2018 
SL 2018 Prispevek k poenostavitvi raziskovalnega programa EU po izteku programa Obzorje 2020 Kratko poročilo Sodišča Marec 2018
CONTENTS Executive summary EU research and innovation programme Horizon 2020 Dilemmas inherent to simplification Stability and change Accountability and ownership Legal certainty and discretion Beneficiaries interest and EU interest Regional spread and excellence The dilemmas in perspective Horizon 2020: a complex system Design of Horizon 2020 Model Grant Agreement Work programme Participant portal Management of Horizon 2020 The Commission The unique role of the Common Support Centre (CSC) Decision making process Funding model Transition from FP6 to FP7 and Horizon 2020 Lump sum project funding Acceptance of beneficiaries’ accounting practices Evolution of the error rate Paragraph I - IV 1 4 - 6 11 - 11 - 13 - 17 - 18 - 20 - 23 - 24 - 27 - 29 - - 3 10 4 5 - 7 8 9 10 22 16 14 15 16 19 17 19 22 30 23 26 28 30 2 
KAZALO Povzetek I-IV Program EU za raziskave in inovacije Obzorje 2020 1–3 Dileme, povezane s poenostavitvijo 4–10 Stabilnost in spremembe 4 Odgovornost in občutek lastništva 5 Pravna gotovost in prosta presoja 6–7 Interesi upravičenci in interesi EU 8 Regionalna porazdelitev in odličnost 9 Dileme in možnosti 10 Obzorje 2020: kompleksen sistem 11–22 Zasnova programa Obzorje 2020 11–16 Vzorčni sporazum o dodelitvi nepovratnih sredstev 13–14 Program dela 15 Portal za udeležence 16 Upravljanje programa Obzorje 2020 17–19 Komisija 17 Posebna vloga skupnega podpornega centra 18–19 Postopek odločanja 20–22 Model financiranja 23–30 Prehod od 6. okvirnega programa na 7. okvirni program in Obzorje 2020 23 Financiranje projektov s pavšalnimi zneski 24–26 Sprejemanje računovodskih praks upravičencev 27–28 Odstavek 2
Participation and excellence Application rate, success rate and participation rate Geographical discrepancies Discrepancies among beneficiary groups Widening actions and seal of excellence A contribution to simplification for research beyond horizon 2020 Where can we identify simplification? 
Spremembe stopnje napake Sodelovanje in odličnost Stopnja vloženih predlogov, stopnja uspešnosti in stopnja sodelovanja Geografske razlike Razlike med skupinami upravičencev Povečevanje udeležbe in pečat odličnosti Prispevek k poenostavitvi na področju raziskav po izteku programa Obzorje 2020 Na katerih področjih lahko ugotovimo poenostavitve?
Proposals for simplification beyond Horizon 2020 Annex I - ECA’s work on EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation Annex II - List of workshops and conferences attended by ECA Annex III - Overview of significant simplifications introduced since FP5 Annex IV - Basic legislation and guidelines for Framework Programmes 31 - 37 31 - 35 32 - 34 35 36 - 37 38 - 42 38 - 41 42 3 
Predlogi za poenostavitev po izteku programa Obzorje 2020 29–30 31–37 31–35 32–34 35 36–37 38–42 38–41 42 Priloga I – Delo Evropskega računskega sodišča v zvezi z okvirnimi programi EU za raziskave in inovacije Priloga II – Seznam delavnic in konferenc, ki so se jih udeležili sodelavci Evropskega računskega sodišča Priloga III – Pregled pomembnih poenostavitev, uvedenih od 5. okvirnega programa Priloga IV – Temeljna zakonodaja in smernice za okvirne programe 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. The European Parliament (EP) and the Council asked the European Court of Auditors (ECA) for input for the preliminary legislative discussion on the successor of Horizon 2020 (“FP9”). 
POVZETEK I. Evropski parlament in Svet sta zaprosila Evropsko računsko sodišče za prispevek k predhodni zakonodajni razpravi o nasledniku programa Obzorje 2020 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: 9. okvirni program).
This briefing paper addresses these requests and focusses on the issue of simplifying the European Union’s (EU) research Framework Programmes. Our analysis shows that simplification is complicated and identifies several proposals to bring focus to the discussion on FP9 that is now taking place. 
To kratko poročilo Sodišča, ki se osredotoča na poenostavitev okvirnih programov EU za raziskave, je odgovor na to zahtevo. Naša analiza je pokazala, da je poenostavitev zapletena.
We describe a number of dilemmas1 that have affected the Commission’s efforts to simplify the implementation of EU research and innovation programmes. 
Opisujemo več dilem1, ki so vplivale na prizadevanja Komisije za poenostavitev izvajanja programov EU za raziskave in inovacije.
We used information from the Commission2 and beneficiaries3, and from our experience in audit work4 (Annex I and Annex II) to relate these dilemmas to the design of the regulatory framework, the funding model and the participation scheme. 
Uporabili smo informacije, prejete od Komisije2 in upravičencev3, ter svoje izkušnje, pridobljene z revizijskim delom4 (Priloga I in Priloga II), da bi te dileme povezali z zasnovo regulativnega okvira, modela financiranja in shemo sodelovanja.
We would like to draw attention to the following proposals to be considered to bring more focus on the discussion on FP9 that is taking place now: 1) a reasonable timespan between adoption and implementation of legal acts; 2) the use of lump sum and prizes; 3) the use of guidelines as non binding rules ; 4) the acceptance of beneficiaries’ accounting practices and 5) the recognition of good project proposals under Horizon 2020 in other programmes via an one-stop-shop approach. 
Poudariti bi želeli naslednje predloge, ki bi jih bilo treba upoštevati, da bi bila potekajoča razprava o 9. okvirnem programu bolj osredotočena: 1) razumno obdobje med sprejetjem in izvajanjem pravnih aktov, 2) uporaba pavšalnih zneskov in nagrad, 3) uporaba smernic in neobvezujočih pravil, 4) sprejetje računovodskih praks upravičencev in 5) priznanje dobrih predlogov projektov iz programa Obzorje 2020 v drugih programih na podlagi pristopa po načelu vse na enem mestu.
We define dilemmas as competing priorities for which the Commission and the budgetary authority need to find the right balance. 
Dileme opredeljujemo kot nasprotujoče si prioritete, za katere morata Komisija in proračunski organ najti ustrezno ravnovesje.
For example, a non-comprehensive collection of valuable information is provided by the European Commission (EC) on its “FP Programme Evaluation Monitoring Documents” website. 
Evropska komisija, na primer, na svoji spletni strani o vrednotenju okvirnih programov objavlja sicer nepopolno zbirko dokumentov s koristnimi informacijami.
This website contains more than 400 review documents. https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index.cfm?pg=archive. 
Na spletni strani je objavljenih več kot 400 dokumentov o pregledih. https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index.cfm?pg=archive.
For example: European University Association (EUA), European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO), League of European Research Universities (LERU), Informal Group of RTD Liaison Offices (IGLO), IDEA-league (strategic alliance among five leading European universities of technology), European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA), Helmholz Association of German Research Centres e.V., Business Europe, CLEPA European Association of Automotive Suppliers, etc. 
Na primer: Zveza evropskih univerz (EUA), Evropska zveza raziskovalnih in tehnoloških inštitutov (EARTO), zveza evropskih raziskovalnih univerz LERU, neformalna skupina uradov za zvezo na področju raziskav in tehnološkega razvoja IGLO, strateška zveza petih vodilnih evropskih tehniških univerz IDEA-league, evropska zveza vodilnih delavcev v upravah raziskovalnih organizacij EARMA, Helmholz Association of German Research Centres e.V., Business Europe, evropska zveza dobaviteljev avtomobilske industrije CLEPA, itd. 1 1 2 3 4 https://www.eca.europa.eu.
This briefing paper is not an audit report. 
To kratko poročilo ni revizijsko poročilo.
We are conducting a performance audit on “simplification in Horizon 2020” with a special report due to be published in late 2018. This forthcoming report will provide an audit assessment with regard to the effectiveness of the Commission’s simplification measures to support the discussion on the implementation of FP9 that starts in late 2018. 
Posebno poročilo naj bi bilo objavljeno konec leta 2018, vključevalo pa bo revizijsko oceno uspešnosti poenostavitvenih ukrepov Komisije in bo namenjeno podpori razprave o izvajanju 9. okvirnega programa, ki se bo začelo proti koncu leta 2018.
EU RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PROGRAMME HORIZON 2020 1. 
PROGRAM EU ZA RAZISKAVE IN INOVACIJE OBZORJE 2020 1.
Horizon 2020 is an EU research and innovation programme, with nearly €80 billion of funding made available over seven years (2014 to 2020). 
Obzorje 2020 je program EU za raziskave in inovacije, za katerega je bilo v sedmih letih (2014–2020) zagotovljenih skoraj 80 milijard EUR.
It is one of the largest public research and development funding programmes in the world and accounts for around 8 % of the EU budget5. Participants can be grouped as follows: universities, research institutions, small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), large companies and public bodies. 
Je eden največjih programov javnega financiranja raziskav in razvoja na svetu in predstavlja približno 8 % proračuna EU.5 V njem sodelujejo univerze, raziskovalni inštituti, mala in srednja podjetja, velika podjetja in javni organi.
To date, more than 130 000 applications have been submitted and almost 20 000 projects have received funding6. 2. 
Doslej je bilo v njegovem okviru predloženih več kot 130 000 vlog za financiranje, sredstva pa je prejelo skoraj 20 000 projektov.6 2.
Horizon 2020 is complex due to the entirety of regulations, rules, guidelines, procedures and processes for implementation (including control and audit) and the multitude of funding instruments7. Unnecessary complexity brings the following risks: irregularity (if the rules are complex or unclear, the probability of non-compliance is high), inefficiency (too much might be spent on administration or on funded projects) and ineffectiveness (performance targets could be missed). 
Obzorje 2020 je kompleksen program zaradi vseh uredb, pravil, smernic, postopkov in procesov pri izvajanju (vključno s kontrolo in revizijami) ter številnih instrumentov financiranja.7 Nepotrebna kompleksnost prinaša naslednja tveganja: tveganje nepravilnosti (če so pravila kompleksna ali nejasna, je verjetnost, da bo prišlo do neskladnosti z njimi, večja), neučinkovitosti (za administracijo ali financirane projekte se lahko porabi preveč) in neuspešnosti (lahko se zgodi, da cilji v zvezi s smotrnostjo niso doseženi).
For Horizon 2020, the Council (2011) called for “a new balance between trust and control” and the EP (2010) for a “more trust-based and risk-tolerant” approach towards participants8. There have been many simplification initiatives for the EU programme for https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/. 
Svet je leta 2011 v zvezi s programom Obzorje 2020 pozval k vzpostavitvi novega ravnovesja med zaupanjem in nadzorom, Evropski parlament pa leta 2010 k odnosu do sodelujočih, ki bolj temelji na zaupanju in je toleranten do tveganja.8 Pripravljenih je bilo več https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/.
Figures provided by the Commission. European Parliament (EP), report on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its interim evaluation and the Framework Programme 9 proposal. “(...) decomplexify the EU funding landscape.” 
Evropski parlament, Poročilo o oceni izvajanja programa Obzorje 2020 ob upoštevanju njegove vmesne ocene in predloga devetega okvirnega programa: zmanjšati kompleksnost financiranja EU (RR\1127422SL.docx).
research and innovation in particular (Annex III). 
pobud za poenostavitev programov EU za raziskave in inovacije (Priloga III).
While simplification is desired, some complexity is needed to ensure that the policy objectives can be achieved and that EU funds can be allocated properly. 
Čeprav je poenostavitev zaželena, je delna kompleksnost potrebna, da se zagotovi, da je možno doseči cilje politike in da se sredstva lahko pravilno dodelujejo.
DILEMMAS INHERENT TO SIMPLIFICATION9 Stability and change 4. 
DILEME, POVEZANE S POENOSTAVITVIJO9 Stabilnost in spremembe 4.
Stability is to use the same set of rules for successive research and innovation programmes, whereas change requires additional efforts from participants to adjust to new rules. 
Stabilnost pomeni, da se uporablja isti sklop pravil za zaporedne programe za raziskave in inovacije, zaradi sprememb pa so potrebna dodatna prizadevanja sodelujočih, da se jim prilagodijo.
Change provides a space for improvements, but it could also result in participants having to adapt to different sets of rules under different research programmes (since many Horizon 2020 grants will still be ongoing for several years after the start of FP9)10 11 (box 1). 3 Box 1 – Beneficiaries appreciate stability12 The League of European Research Universities (LERU) represents 23 universities. 
Spremembe omogočajo izboljšave, vendar bi se zaradi njih lahko zgodilo, da bi se morali sodelujoči prilagoditi drugačnemu sklopu pravil za posamezne programe (ker veliko nepovratnih sredstev za Obzorje 2020 še več let po začetku 9. okvirnega programa ne bo porabljenih) (okvir 1).10 11 3 Okvir 1 – Upravičenci cenijo stabilnost12 V zvezo evropskih raziskovalnih univerz LERU je včlanjenih 23 univerz.
In June 2010 LERU published an advice paper: “Towards an effective 8th framework programme for research”. 
Junija 2010 je LERU objavila svetovalni dokument z naslovom Towards an effective 8th framework programme for research.
This paper was partly a response to the Commission’s Communication on simplifying the implementation of the research Framework Programmes. 
Ta dokument je deloma odgovor na sporočilo Komisije o poenostavitvi izvajanja okvirnih programov za raziskave.
The paper stated (paragraph 27) that: “optimisation is strongly desired in worst cases, but stability of rules is a measure of simplification itself and is preferred to the change towards only slightly simpler rules. Too many consecutive changes should be avoided.” 
V njem je v odstavku 27 navedeno, da je v najslabših primerih optimizacija zelo zaželena, vendar je stabilnost pravil sama po sebi merilo poenostavitve in bolj zaželena kot sprememba, katere posledica so le zelo malo enostavnejša pravila, in da se je treba izogibati prevelikemu številu zaporednih sprememb.
9 10 11 12 We analysed five dilemma’s but there are more, such as : national and EU interests, small and big industry, public and private R&D spending and State Aid issues (Lamy report, p. 
9 10 11 12 Sodišče je analiziralo pet dilem, vendar obstajajo še druge, kot so nacionalni interesi in interesi EU, mala in velika podjetja, javna in zasebna poraba za raziskave in razvoj ter problematika državne pomoči (t. i. Lamyjevo poročilo, str.
OECD 2010, Strategy and policies for better regulation, United Kingdom p. 
OECD 2010, Strategy and policies for better regulation, Združeno kraljestvo, str.
European Commission, COM(2010) 187, 29 April 2010, p. 12. 
Evropska komisija, COM(2010) 187 z dne 29. aprila 2010, str. 12.
LERU advice paper “Towards an effective 8th framework programme for research” Nr. 2, May 2010, p. 
Svetovalni dokument LERU z naslovom Towards an effective 8th framework programme for research, št. 2, maj 2010, str.
10 paragraph 27. 
10, odstavek 27.
Accountability and ownership 5. 
Odgovornost in občutek lastništva 5.
Accountability implies placing the burden of proof on the beneficiary for the use of EU funds. Ownership implies relying on beneficiaries for self management and self-regulation. 
Odgovornost pomeni, da dokazno breme za porabo sredstev EU nosijo upravičenci, občutek lastništva pa zanašanje na samoupravljanje in samoregulacijo upravičencev.
It would be easier to disburse grants for research, without asking beneficiaries to account for the public money received. 
Nepovratna sredstva za raziskave bi bilo laže izplačati, če ne bi bili upravičenci dolžni upravičiti porabo prejetih javnih sredstev.
But accountability is essential for public trust. 
Toda odgovornost je bistvena za zaupanje javnosti.
The pursuit of accountability, however, could lead to excessive caution in efforts to simplify complex research regulations and create a hindrance to research work (box 2). 
Vendar bi zahteva po odgovornosti lahko privedla do pretirane previdnosti pri prizadevanjih za poenostavitev kompleksnih predpisov v zvezi z raziskavami in do ovir za raziskovalno delo (okvir 2).
Legal certainty is important because beneficiaries bear the financial risk of interpreting provisions wrongly. 
Pravna gotovost je pomembna, ker upravičenci nosijo finančno tveganje za napačno razlago določb.
Legal certainty means that only one interpretation of a given rule should prevail; “(...) every measure of the institutions having legal effects must be clear and precise and must be brought to the notice of the person concerned in such a way that he can ascertain exactly the time at which the measure comes into being and starts to have legal effects (...)”14. Stakeholders’ Workshop on ideas for further simplification on the implementation of the R&I Framework programmes, Brussels 20 October 2017, p. 12. 
Načelo pravne gotovosti zahteva, da prevlada samo ena razlaga nekega pravila, in sicer morajo biti vsi akti institucij, ki imajo pravne učinke, jasni in natančni, pri čemer mora biti zadevna oseba o njih obveščena tako, da lahko natančno ugotovi, kdaj akt začne veljati in od kdaj ima pravne učinke.14 Delavnica deležnikov o idejah za dodatno poenostavitev pri izvajanju okvirnih programov za raziskave in inovacije, Bruselj, 20. oktobra 2017, str. 12.
See Case Opel Austria, T-115/94 paragraph 124, referring to: Case 169/80 Administration des Douanes v Gondrand Frères and Garancini [1981] ECR 1931, paragraph 17; Case 70/83 Kloppenburg v Finanzamt Leer [1984] ECR 1075, paragraph 11; Case 325/85 Ireland v 4 Box 2 – Researchers demand a balance between proper accountability and a reasonable administrative burden As part of accountability, on top of the need to demonstrate sound financial management of expenditure, for monitoring and evaluation purposes, the Commission requires information and data on the economic and societal impact of the EU funding for research and innovation. 
Glej zadevo Opel Austria, T-115/94, točka 124, ki se sklicuje na: sodbe Sodišča z dne 9. julija 1981 v zadevi Gondrand Frères in Garancini, 169/80, Recueil, str. 1931, točka 17; z dne 22. februarja 1984 v zadevi Kloppenburg, 70/83, Recueil, str. 1075, točka 11, in z dne 15 decembra 1987 v zadevi Irska proti Komisiji, 325/85, Recueil, str.
Discretion implies different possible and reasonable interpretations of the rule by competent authorities. 
Prosta presoja pomeni, da pristojni organi lahko neko pravilo razlagajo na različne, vendar smiselne načine.
Different actors intervening at different moments in the project life cycle (project officers and auditors in the Commission, national bodies15, ECA auditors) may have their own understanding and different interpretations of the requirements, with the risk of making the beneficiaries liable to uncertain financial consequences (box 3). 
Različni akterji, ki se vključujejo v različnih trenutkih projektnega cikla (zadolženi za projekt in revizorji na Komisiji, nacionalni organi15, revizorji Evropskega računskega sodišča), lahko zahteve razumejo po svoje in si jih različno razlagajo, pri tem pa obstaja tveganje, da odgovornost za negotove finančne posledice naložijo upravičencem (okvir 3).
Moreover, when guidelines and examples are used to illustrate the room of discretion, these guidelines and examples should not be interpreted in such a way to limit the room of possible discretion. 
Če se za ponazoritev proste presoje uporabljajo smernice in primeri, se teh ne sme razlagati tako, da bi se prosta presoja omejila.
5 15 Commission [1987] ECR 5041, paragraph 18; Joined Cases T-18/89 and T-24/89 Tagaras v Court of Justice [1991] ECR II-53, paragraph 40. 
5 15 Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 7. februarja 1991 v zadevi Tagaras proti Sodišču, T-18/89 in T-24/89, Recueil, str.
For example, national ministries, national funders, supreme audit institutions (SAIs), as well as private audit firms. 
II-53, točka 40. Na primer ministrstva, financerji, vrhovne revizijske institucije in zasebne revizijske družbe v posameznih državah.
Beneficiaries interest and EU interest 8. Beneficiaries have an interest in obtaining the reimbursement of their costs, whereas the EU focusses on the totality of the fund and the efficiency in allocating funds to individual beneficiaries. 
Interesi upravičenci in interesi EU 8. Upravičenci so zainteresirani, da dobijo svoje stroške vrnjene, EU pa se osredotoča na celoto sredstev in učinkovitost pri njihovem dodeljevanju posameznim upravičencem.
For beneficiaries such as universities, potential adverse effects of simplification on their revenue could lead to fear of and resistence to simplification, even if these effects turn out to be positive (box 4). 
Pri upravičencih, kot so univerze, bi morebitni negativni učinki poenostavitve na njihove prihodke lahko povzročili strah pred poenostavitvijo in odpor do nje, tudi če bi se izkazalo, da so učinki pozitivni (okvir 4).
ECA workshop, Brussels 9 February 2015 and 11 March 2016. 
Delavnica Evropskega računskega sodišča, Bruselj, 9. februar 2015 in 11. marec 2016.
Examples can be found under: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/mga/h2020-mga-art-updatehistory_en.pdf. 
Primere je mogoče najti na: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/mga/h2020-mga-art-updatehistory_en.pdf.
6 Box 3 – Beneficiaries have the concern that they may face legal uncertainty16 We organised workshops with legal experts, auditors and final beneficiaries on audit experiences in EU research and innovation programmes. 
6 Okvir 3 – Upravičence skrbi možnost pravne negotovosti16 Evropsko računsko sodišče je organiziralo delavnico s strokovnjaki pravniki, revizorji in končnimi upravičenci o izkušnjah z revidiranjem programov EU za raziskave in inovacije.