natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, completing transition to the new COSO framework is challenging because it makes demands of organisations at the level of governance structures, highlighting the responsibility of governing bodies to oversee the performance of all components of the internal control system (see Box 11 COSO principle 2), and requires all elements of control to be in place and working before an organisation meets COSO standards (see Annex I). 
Toda dokončanje prehoda na novi okvir COSO bo izziv, saj vključuje zahteve za organizacije na rav­ ni struktur upravljanja, pri čemer poudarja odgovornost organov upravljanja za nadzorovanje delovanja vseh delov sistema notranje kontrole (glej načelo 2 okvi­ ra COSO v okviru 11), ter zahteva brezhibno delovanje vseh elementov kontrole, da bi organizacija izpolnjevala standarde COSO (glej Prilogo I).
In paragraphs 36 to 39 we discuss three challenging elements of the COSO framework. 
V odstavkih 36 do 39 obravnavamo tri elemente okvira COSO, ki pomenijo izziv.
Challenging elements of the new COSO framework COSO Principle 2 ‘The board of directors demonstrates independence from management and exercises oversight of the development and performance of internal control’. 
Elementi okvira COSO, ki pomenijo izziv Načelo 2 COSO Upravni odbor izkazuje neodvisnost od upravljanja ter izvaja pregled nad razvojem in uspešnostjo notranje kontrole.
COSO Principle 5 ‘The organisation holds individuals accountable for their internal control responsibilities in the pursuit of objectives’. 
Načelo 5 COSO V organizaciji so posamezniki pri doseganju ciljev odgovorni za svoje obveznosti glede notranje kontrole.
COSO Principle 8 ‘The organisation considers the potential for fraud in assessing risks to the achievement of objectives’53. 53 Source: 2013 COSO Internal Control – Integrated Framework. © Committee of Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 
Načelo 8 COSO Organizacija pri ocenjevanju tveganja, da cilji ne bodo doseženi, upošteva možnost goljufij.53 53 Vir: 2013 COSO Internal Control – Integrated Framework (Notranja kontrola COSO 2013 – Celostni okvir). © Odbor sponzorskih organizacij Treadwayeve komisije (COSO).
Used with permission. Box 11 
Uporabljeno z dovoljenjem COSO. Okvir 11
Observations 32 36 Bringing the Commission’s control framework into line with COSO 2013 (COSO Principle 2) would require a central level function to provide oversight of the internal control system. 
Opažanja 32 36 Za uskladitev okvira kontrole Komisije z okvirom COSO iz leta 2013 (načelo 2 COSO) bi bila potrebna funkcija na centralni ravni, ki bi zagotavljala pregled siste­ ma notranje kontrole.
The Commission told us that the reason for not having such a function is to maintain a clear definition of responsibilities and accountability at the level of DGs. 
Komisija je navedla, da take funkcije nima, ker želi ohraniti jasno opredelitev pristojnosti in odgovornosti na ravni generalnih direktoratov.
The Commission considers that the current structure places responsibility for the operation of the internal control system exclusively on individual authorising officers by delegation and that a central oversight function may lead to a transfer of responsibility54. While the CFS issued an annual document on the ‘Overview on the state of Internal Control in the Commission’ until 201455, this was not an independent source of assurance, but a descriptive summary. 
Meni, da so v sedanji strukturi za delovanje sistema notranje kontrole odgovor­ ni izključno posamezni odredbodajalci na podlagi prenosa pooblastil in da bi centralna funkcija za pregled lahko povzročila prenos odgovornosti.54 Čeprav je centralna finančna služba do leta 2014 letno izdajala dokument o pregledu stanja notranje kontrole na Komisiji,55 to ni bil neodvisen vir zagotovila, temveč opisni povzetek.
37 The Commission abolished the financial controller function in order to make the directors-general responsible for the legality and regularity of spending by their DGs. 
37 Komisija je funkcijo finančnega nadzornika ukinila, da bi za zagotavljanje zako­ nitosti in pravilnosti porabe v svojih GD postali odgovorni generalni direktorji.
DGs report annually on their management via the AAR (see paragraph 55). 
Generalni direktorati poročajo o svojem upravljanju enkrat na leto v svojih letnih poročilih o dejavnostih (glej odstavek 55).
But mechanisms to hold individuals to account for their contribution to internal control (COSO Principle 5) are relatively undeveloped. 
Vseeno pa so mehanizmi, na podlagi katerih so posamezniki odgovorni za svoj prispevek k notranji kontroli (načelo 5 COSO), razmeroma nerazviti.
The Commission has not put in place staff evaluation criteria linked to this objective. 
Komisija še ni vzpostavila meril za oceno uslužbencev, povezanih s tem ciljem.
The AAR provides a potential mechanism to achieve such a linkage for directors-general. 
Letno poročilo o dejavnostih je potencial­ ni mehanizem za doseganje te povezave pri generalnih direktorjih.
However, in practice the Commission has not established a basis to determine whether the declarations made within AARs are well-founded56, or established a benchmark against which to hold DGs accountable. 38 In 2001, following the adoption of the first overall anti-fraud strategy57 (COSO Principle 8) and in the wake of the White Paper on administrative reform the Commission announced that a unit within OLAF would ‘develop an overall strategic approach to fraud prevention. 
V praksi pa Komisija še ni vzpostavila podlage, na kateri bi ugotavljala, ali so izjave v letnih poročilih o dejavnostih utemeljene, niti referenčnega merila za odgovornost generalnih direktoratov.56 38 Leta 2001 je Komisija po sprejetju prve splošne strategije na področju boja proti goljufijam57 (načelo 8 COSO) in bele knjige o upravni reformi napovedala, da bo enota Evropskega urada za boj proti goljufijam razvila splošen strateški pristop k preprečevanju goljufij, ki bo obravnaval nove osnutke zakonodaje z znatni­ mi finančnimi posledicami na področjih, na katerih obstaja tveganje goljufije.
In 2011 the Commission developed a new anti-fraud strategy58 covering the whole ‘anti-fraud cycle’ from the prevention and detection of fraud to investigations, sanctioning and recovery of misused funds and also clarifying the responsibilities of the various parties involved. 
Komisija je leta 2011 razvila novo strategijo na področju boja proti goljufijam58, ki zajema celoten cikel boja proti goljufijam od preprečevanja in odkrivanja goljufij do preiskovanja, kazni in izterjav nepravilno porabljenih sredstev ter pojasnjuje obveznosti različnih akterjev.
39 The Commission’s risk management guidelines take the risk of fraud into account and DGs are required to report annually on fraud prevention and detection in a specific section of their AARs. 
39 V smernicah Komisije za obvladovanje tveganja je upoštevano tveganje goljufije, generalni direktorati pa morajo o preprečevanju in odkrivanju goljufij enkrat let­ no poročati v posebnem razdelku svojega letnega poročila o dejavnostih.
The Commission’s current internal control standards do not, as required by COSO principle 8 (see Annex I), address fraud risk directly. 
Sedanji standardi notranje kontrole Komisije tveganja goljufij ne obravnavajo neposred­ no, kot zahteva načelo 8 COSO (glej Prilogo I).
The Commission told us that they will cover this point in the next revision of the internal control standards. 
Komisija nas je obvestila, da bo ta točka upoštevana pri naslednji spremembi standardov notranje kontrole.
54 A similar issue was raised by the IAS in the Working paper supporting the 2015 Overall Opinion: ‘an overview at the level of the institution is necessary if common processes, such as fraud prevention and detection, are to be effective in protecting the institution as a whole. 
54 Na podobno vprašanje je opozorila Služba za notranjo revizijo v delovnem dokumentu, ki podpira splošno mnenje za leto 2015. V njem je navedeno, da je pregled na ravni institucije nujen za zagotavljanje uspešnosti splošnih procesov, kot sta preprečevanje in odkrivanje goljufij, pri zaščiti institucije kot celote.
The IAS recommends that at the corporate level central measures should be taken to ensure a consistent, reliable, complete and comprehensive approach at the operational level and an overall view on the Commission-wide issues and on the cost-effectiveness of the measures taken. 
Služba za notranjo revizijo priporoča, naj se na ravni organizacije uvedejo centralni ukrepi za zagotavljanje doslednega, zanesljivega, celovitega in izčrpnega pristopa na operativni ravni ter pregleda nad zadevami na ravni Komisije in nad stroškovno učinkovitostjo uvedenih ukrepov.
The central services should strengthen their guidance to the DGs/Services to improve the effectiveness of controls at the operational, DG/Service level. 
Centralna služba naj okrepi svoje usmerjanje generalnih direktoratov/služb, da bi izboljšala uspešnost kontrol na operativni ravni, tj. na ravni generalnih direktoratov/služb.
55 The document was discontinued in 2015. 
55 Dokument se od leta 2015 ne izdaja več.
56 The IAS issues a ‘limited conclusion on internal control’ in support of the AAR rather than an ‘annual opinion’. 57 COM(2000)358 final of 28 June 2000 ‘Protection of the Communities’ financial interests. 
57 COM(2000) 358 final z dne 28. junija 2000, Protection of the Communities' financial interests – The fight against fraud – For an overall strategic approach (Zaščita finančnih interesov Skupnosti – Boj proti goljufijam – Za splošen strateški pristop).
58 COM(2011) 376 final of 24 June 2011 ‘Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy’. 
58 COM(2011) 376 final z dne 24. junija 2011 o strategiji Komisije na področju boja proti goljufijam, ki temelji na sporočilu o preprečevanju goljufij (COM(2007) 806 final).
Observations 33 Producing annual accounts in line with international standards improved financial reporting IPSAS The International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) issued by the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB), ‘provide the most complete suite of accrual-based international financial reporting standards developed specifically for the public sector’59. 
Opažanja 33 Priprava letnih računovodskih izkazov v skladu z mednarodnimi standardi je izboljšala računovodsko poročanje MRSJS Mednarodni računovodski standardi za javni sektor (MRSJS), ki jih je izdal Upravni odbor za mednarodne raču­ novodske standarde za javni sektor (IPSASB), zagotavljajo najpopolnejši niz mednarodnih standardov računo­ vodskega poročanja na podlogi nastanka poslovnega dogodka, ki je bil razvit posebej za javni sektor.59 59 CIPFA/IFAC, International Framework: Good Governance in the Public Sector (Mednarodni okvir: Dobro upravljanje v javnem sektorju), 2014, str.
40 As can be seen in Figure 5, accrual accounting was introduced in two stages. 
40 Kot kaže slika 5, je bilo računovodstvo na podlagi nastanka poslovnega dogodka uvedeno v dveh fazah.
A much bigger change took place in 2005 (see paragraph 8) when the Commission moved to base its financial reporting on international standards. 
Precej večja sprememba je bila uvedena leta 2005 (glej odstavek 8), ko je Komisija računovod­ sko poročanje osnovala na mednarodnih standardih.
The impact of these changes was that the pre-2000 presentation of a partial balance sheet was replaced with a complete presentation of assets and liabilities. 
Na podlagi teh sprememb je bila predstavitev delne bilance stanja, ki se je uporabljala pred letom 2000, zamenjana s popolno predstavitvijo sredstev in obveznosti.
41 The Commission’s new accounting framework first applied in 2005, and we were able for the first time to issue an unqualified opinion on the reliability of the 2007 annual accounts. 
41 Nov računovodski okvir Komisije se je začel uporabljati leta 2005, Računsko sodišče pa je prvič lahko izdalo mnenje brez pridržka o zanesljivosti letnih raču­ novodskih izkazov za leto 2007.
In producing financial statements on an accrual basis and in line with international standards (Box 12), the Commission has improved transparency and achieved a good standard of financial reporting. Box 12 
Komisija je pri pripravi računovodskih izkazov na podlagi nastanka poslovnega dogodka in v skladu z mednarodnimi standardi (okvir 12) izboljšala preglednost in dosegla dober standard računovod­ skega poročanja. Okvir 12
Observations 34 European Union — presentation of assets and liabilities 1997-2015 Billion euro 175 125 75 25 - 25 - 75 - 125 - 175 - 225 Source: ECA (based on a visual presentation from French Cour des comptes in ‘La comptabilité générale de l’État, dix ans après’, February 2016). 
Opažanja 34 Evropska unija: predstavitev sredstev in obveznosti za obdobje 1997–2015 Računovodstvo, ki v celoti temelji na nastanku poslovnega dogodka (v milijardah EUR) 175 125 75 25 - 25 - 75 - 125 - 175 - 225 Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče (na podlagi slikovnega prikaza, ki ga je francosko računsko sodišče vključilo v dokument La comptabilité générale de l’État, dix ans après, februar 2016).
Providing non-financial information to internal and external stakeholders The Commission provides non-financial information alongside the accounts ... 
Zagotavljanje nefinančnih informacij notranjim in zunanjim deležnikom Komisija poleg računovodskih izkazov zagotavlja tudi nefinančne informacije ...
42 While the reform resulted in much better annual accounts, the EU provided no accompanying management analysis or narrative until 2014 when it voluntarily accompanied the consolidated annual accounts for 2014 with a Financial Statement Discussion and Analysis (FSD&A). 
42 Čeprav so se letni računovodski izkazi z reformo močno izboljšali, jim EU ni prilo­ žila nobene spremne analize upravljanja ali opisnega poročila vse do leta 2014, ko je konsolidiranim letnim računovodskim izkazom za leto 2014 prostovoljno priložila razpravo o računovodskih izkazih in njihovo analizo.
This provided some background and analytical material for users60. However the discussion of EU objectives focused on those announced for the Commission by its President61, rather than agreed EU 2020 strategy62. 
To je uporabnikom omogočilo vpogled v ozadje in jim dalo na voljo analitično gradivo.60 Razprava o ciljih EU pa se je osredotočala na cilje, ki jih je za Komisijo napovedal njen predsednik61, in ne na strategijo Evropa 202062, kot je bilo dogovorjeno.
The only discussion of governance issues in the FSD&A was a brief (and Commission-centred) listing of the roles of the key institutions63. full accrual accounting 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total assets Total assets full accrual Total liabilities Total liabilities full accrual Net assets 60 Some of the information that similar organisations provide alongside the accounts in an annual report has been made available in the synthesis report (see paragraph 57 and Figure 8). 
V razpravi o računovodskih izkazih in njihovi analizi je bilo vprašanje upravljanja obravnava­ no le v obliki kratke (na Komisijo osredotočene) navedbe vlog ključnih institucij.63 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Sredstva skupaj Sredstva skupaj, v celoti na podlagi nastanka poslovnega dogodka Obveznosti skupaj Obveznosti skupaj, v celoti na podlagi nastanka poslovnega dogodka Čista sredstva 60 Nekatere informacije, ki jih podobne organizacije v letnem poročilu zagotavljajo poleg računovodskih izkazov,so zdaj na voljo v zbirnem poročilu (glej odstavek 57 in sliko 8).
62 COM(2010) 2020 final of 3 March 2010 ‘Europe 2020, a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’. 
62 COM(2010) 2020 final z dne 3. marca 2010, Evropa 2020 – Strategija za pametno, trajnostno in vključujočo rast.
63 Council is described as the forum in which ‘Governments defend their country’s national interests’, while the ‘interests oftheEUasawholeare promoted by the European Commission’. 
63 Svet je opisan kot forum, na katerem „vlade zagovarjajo nacionalne interese svoje države“, medtem ko „interese EU kot celote podpira Evropska komisija“.
Observations 35 43 A key statement of best practice is provided in Box 13. 
Opažanja 35 43 V okviru 13 je navedena ključna izjava o dobri praksi.
We compared the contents of a number of frameworks64 and evaluation criteria and found that several elements of best practice were common to many frameworks (see Annex II). 
Primerjali smo vsebino več okvirov64 in meril za ocenjevanje ter ugotovili, da ima več okvirov nekatere skupne elemente dobre prakse (glej Prilogo II).
All the benchmarks we used included an annual report on governance (as does GGPS), discussion of risks, as well as financial and non-financial performance. 
Vsa referenčna merila, ki smo jih uporabili, so vključevala letno poročilo o upravljanju (tako kot GGPS), razpravo o tveganjih ter finančno in nefinančno uspešnost.
All but one require a narrative report covering objectives and strategies as well as social and staff issues. 
V vseh merilih razen enem se zahteva opisno poročilo, ki zajema cilje in strategije ter socialna in kadrovska vprašanja.
Three require a description of business model. 
V treh merilih se zahteva opis poslovnega modela.
64 Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/ EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups (OJ L 330, 15.11.2014, p. 
64 Direktiva 2014/95/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. oktobra 2014 o spremembi Direktive 2013/34/EU glede razkritja nefinančnih informacij in informacij o raznolikosti nekaterih velikih podjetij in skupin (UL L 330, 15.11.2014, str.
1), the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the ‘Building Public Trust Awards’ award criteria, IPSASB Recommended Practice Guidelines and OECD guidelines. 
1), Svet za celovito poročanje (IRC), merila za podeljevanje nagrad „Building Public Trust Awards“, smernice o priporočeni praksi IPSASB in smernice OECD.
GOOD GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES Principles of annual reporting BEST PRACTICE GGPS: ‘Public sector entities should demonstrate that they have delivered their stated commitments, requirements, and priorities and have used public resources effectively in doing so. 
Smernice za dobro upravljanje Načela letnega poročanja NA JBOL JŠA PRAKSA GGPS: Subjekti javnega sektorja bi morali dokazati, da so izpolnili dane zaveze, zahteve in prednostne naloge ter pri tem javna sredstva uspešno porabljali.
To that end, they need to report publicly at least annually in a timely manner, so that stakeholders can understand and make judgements on issues such as how the entity is performing, whether it is delivering value for money, and the soundness of its stewardship of resources. 
Zato morajo vsaj enkrat letno pravočasno javno poročati o tem, da bi deležniki lahko razumeli vprašanja, kot so: kako uspešen je subjekt, ali deluje stroškovno učinkovito in ali ustrezno upravlja svoje vire, ter o njih presojali.
It is also important that the process for gathering information and compiling the annual report ensures that the governing body and senior management own the results shown. 
V postopku zbiranja informacij in priprave letnega poročila je treba tudi zagotoviti, da organ upravljanja in višje vodstvo sprejemata odgovornost za izkazane rezultate.
Governing bodies should assess the extent to which they are applying the principles of good governance, as set out in this Framework, and report publicly on this assessment, including an action plan for improvement. 
Organi upravljanja bi morali oceniti, v kolikšni meri izvajajo načela dobrega upravljanja, kot so določena v tem okviru, in javno poročati o tej oceni, ki bi vključevala akcijski načrt za izboljšanje.
The performance information and accompanying financial statements that public sector entities publish should be prepared on a consistent and timely basis. 
Informacije o smotrnosti in priloženi računovodski izkazi, ki jih objavljajo subjekti javnega sektorja, bi morali biti pripravljeni dosledno in pravočasno.
The statements should allow for comparison with other, similar entities and be prepared using internationally accepted high quality standards.’ 
Izkazi bi morali omogočati primerjavo z drugimi podobnimi subjekti, pripraviti pa bi jih bilo treba v skladu z mednarodno sprejetimi standardi visoke kakovosti.
65 Commission recommendation for listed companies: governance information should be sufficiently clear, accurate and comprehensive to enable shareholders, investors and other stakeholders to gain a good understanding of the manner in which the company is governed. 
65 Priporočilo Komisije za družbe, ki kotirajo na borzi: informacije o upravljanju bi morale biti dovolj jasne, natančne in celovite, da bi delničarjem, vlagateljem in drugim zainteresiranim stranem omogočile dobro razu­ mevanje načina upravljanja podjetja.
Also companies should routinely make this information available on their websites and include a reference to the website in their management report.66 65 CIPFA/,IFAC, ‘International Framework: Good Governance in the Public Sector’, 2014, p. 
Družbe bi morale te informacije tudi redno objavljati na svojih spletnih straneh in v svoje poročilo o upravljanju vključiti sklic na spletno stran.66 65 CIPFA/IFAC, International Framework: Good Governance in the Public Sector (Mednarodni okvir: Dobro upravljanje v javnem sektorju), 2014, str.
66 Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2014 on the quality of corporate governance reporting (‘comply or explain’) (OJ L 109, 12.4.2014, p. 
66 Priporočilo Komisije z dne 9. aprila 2014 o kakovosti poročanja o upravljanju podjetja („upoštevaj ali pojasni“) (UL L 109, 12.4.2014, str.
(Other documents that appear to have some of the characteristics of annual accountability information (such as the SR and the Financial Report) are not accompanied by an independent audit opinion). ο comparison between budgetary and financial results: the Commission includes in the annual accounts a full comparison of the budgetary and financial results. 
(Drugim doku­ mentom, ki imajo nekatere značilnosti letnih računovodskih informacij – kot sta zbirno in finančno poročilo – ni priloženo mnenje neodvisnega revizorja). ο Primerjava med proračunskim in finančnim rezultatom: Komisija letnim računovodskim izkazom priloži celovito primerjavo proračunskih in finančnih rezultatov.
67 We contacted supreme audit institutions (SAIs) in the 28 Member States, to gain an insight into the way accounts are prepared, the provision of non-financial information, and the responsibility for signing accounts. 
67 Računsko sodišče se je obrnilo na vrhovne revizijske institucije v 28 državah članicah, da bi dobilo vpogled v način pripravljanja računovodskih izkazov, zagotavljanje nefinančnih informacij in odgovornost za potrjevanje izkazov.
Observations 37 68 Listed companies in the EU are required by EU directive to include a corporate governance statement in their management report. 
Opažanja 37 68 Družbe, ki v EU kotirajo na borzi, morajo v skladu z direktivo EU v svoje poročilo o upravljanju vključiti izjavo o upravljanju podjetja.
69 Annual Report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2006, COM(2007) 280 final, p. 
69 Letno poročilo organu, ki da razrešnico, o notranjih revizijah, opravljenih leta 2006, COM(2007) 280 final, str.
12, Conclusion No 5. 
5.