natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Audit scope and approach 8.9. TheCourt’soverallauditapproachandmethodologyis described in Part 2 of Annex 1.1. 
Obseg revizije in revizijski pristop 8.9. Splošni revizijski pristop in metodologija Sodišča sta opisana v delu 2 Priloge 1.1.
For the audit of Economic and Financial Affairs, the following specific points should be noted: — a sample of 80 payments was tested, 51 of which were interim or final payments including 15 relating to the three programmes mentioned above (5) (see paragraph 8.5); — advances were included in the sample because they are at risk of error; and — the assessment of the effectiveness of the supervisory and control systems covered: — ex-ante desk checks for payments made by the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) (6), mainly through an examination of a sample of 30 payments; — audit certification of project cost statements provided by independent auditors; and — ex-post controls, notably those of Directorates General Enterprise and Industry and Economic and Financial Affairs. T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S 8.8. The payment made to ESA in 2009 was the first contribution from the EU budget to the jointly managed GMES programme. 
Glede revizije gospodarskih in finančnih zadev je treba navesti naslednje: — preizkušen je bil vzorec z 80 plačili, med katerimi je bilo 51 vmesnih ali končnih plačil, vključno s 15, povezanimi z že omenjenimi tremi programi (5) (glej odstavek 8.5), — vzorec je vseboval predplačila, ker se pri njih pojavlja tveganje napak, in — ocena uspešnosti nadzornih in kontrolnih sistemov je vsebovala: — predhodne dokumentacijske preglede plačil, ki jih je izvršila Izvajalska agencija za konkurenčnost in inova­ tivnost (EACI) (6), predvsem pregled vzorca s 30 plačili, — revizijsko potrjevanje izjav o stroških projektov, ki ga opravijo neodvisni revizorji, in — naknadne kontrole, zlasti kontrole Generalnega direkto­ rata za podjetništvo in industrijo ter Generalnega direk­ torata za gospodarske in finančne zadeve. O D G O VO R I KO M I S I J E 8.8 Plačilo, izvršeno Evropski vesoljski agenciji (agencija ESA) v letu 2009, je bil prvi prispevek iz proračuna EU k skupno vodenemu programu za globalno spremljanje okolja in varnosti (program GMES).
The Delegation Agreement was signed between the Commission and ESA under the terms of ‘Joint Management’, where certain implementation tasks are delegated to international organisations. _____________ (4) ESA is an international public sector organisation set up by an intergovernmental agreement outside the EU framework. 
Komisija in agencija ESA sta podpisali sporazum o prenosu pooblastil v skladu s pogoji „skupnega vodenja“, v okviru katerih se določene naloge izvrševanja prenesejo na mednarodne organizacije. _____________ (4) ESA je mednarodna organizacija javnega sektorja, ki je bila ustano­ vljena z medvladnim sporazumom zunaj okvira EU.
ESA has its headquarters in Paris and specialist centres in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Spain. 
Njen sedež je v Parizu, specialistični centri pa na Nizozemskem, v Nemčiji, Italiji in Španiji.
(5) For 14 interim or final payments, the audit was carried out at the level of the final beneficiaries. 
(5) Pri 14 vmesnih ali končnih plačilih je bila revizija izvedena na ravni končnih upravičencev.
(6) EACI is entrusted by the Commission with the management of actions under the CIP programme financed by the 02 — Enterprise policy. 
(6) Komisija je EACI zaupala upravljanje ukrepov v okviru programa CIP, ki se financira s področja politike 02 – podjetništvo.
EN 180 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 9.11.2010 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S Regularity of transactions 8.10. Theresultsofthetransactiontestingaresummarised in Annex 8.1. 
SL 180 UradnilistEvropskeunije 9.11.2010 U G O T O V I T V E S O D I Š Č A Pravilnost transakcij 8.10 RezultatipreizkušanjatransakcijsopovzetivPrilogi 8.1.
The Court found that 26 % of the payments (21 out of 80)(7) were affected by 25 errors. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je na 26 % plačil (21 od 80) (7) vplivalo 25 napak.
62% of these payments (13 out of 21) were affected by quantifiable errors concerning the eligibility or accuracy of declared expenditure. 
Na 62 % teh plačil (13 od 21) so vplivale količinsko opredeljive napake, povezane z upravičenostjo ali točnostjo prijavljenih odhodkov.
The rest of the payments (eight out of 21) were affected by non-quantifiable errors and principally relate to breaches of either the Commission procurement procedures or other internal rules(8). 
Na ostala plačila (osem od 21) so vplivale količinsko neopredeljive napake, ki so povezane predvsem s kršitvami postopkov Komisije za oddajo javnega naročila ali drugih notranjih pravil (8).
The Court found that overall the tested payments were free from material error. 8.11. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da v preizkušenih plačilih na splošno ni bilo pomembnih napak.
Mostoftheseerrorsrelatedtoactionsfinancedbythe three programmes mentioned above (see paragraph 8.5) and concern the reimbursement by the Commission of ineligible costs declared by beneficiaries in their cost statements. 
8.11 Večina teh napak je bila povezana z ukrepi, financira­ nimi iz že omenjenih treh programov (glej odstavek 8.5), in se nanaša na povračilo s strani Komisije neupravičenih stroškov, ki so jih v svojih izjavah o stroških prijavili upravičenci.
This result is corroborated by the findings of the Commission’s ex-post controls (9). 
Ta rezultat potrjujejo ugotovitve naknadnih kontrol Komisije (9).
8.12. Thecausesoftheerrorsweremostlyduetoineligible personnel and indirect costs, inadequate or missing supporting evidence. 
8.12 Napake so večinoma povzročili neupravičeni stroški dela in posredni stroški ter neustrezna ali manjkajoča dokazila.
The following three examples illustrate the types of projects with errors that the Court encounters in its audits at the level of the final beneficiaries. 
Naslednji trije primeri ponazarjajo vrste projektov z napakami, s katerimi se Sodišče srečuje pri svojih revizijah na ravni končnih upravičencev.
The Commission is striving to further reduce and correct errors as far as this is possible by cost efficient means 8.11. 
O D G O VO R I KO M I S I J E 8.10 Komisija si prizadeva nadalje zmanjšati in popraviti napake, kolikor je to stroškovno učinkovito mogoče.
The complexity of the rules is a major source of errors and ineligible costs claims. 
8.11 Eden od glavnih vzrokov za napake in neupravičene zahtevke za stroške je kompleksnost pravil.
The Commission’s Communication on simplifying the research framework programmes proposes actions to address this risk. 
V Sporočilu Komisije o poenosta­ vitvi okvirnih raziskovalnih programov so predlagani ukrepi za preprečitev tega tveganja.
As these proposals will only be implemented under the next framework programme, and as the Commission needs to address the problems caused by complex eligibility requirements for grant beneficiaries, it adopted on 26 May 2010 a Communi­ cation (1) to the other Institutions proposing a level for the tolerable risk of error in the research area of between 2 and 5 %. 
Ker se bodo ti predlogi izvajali šele v okviru naslednjega okvirnega programa in ker mora Komisija obravnavati probleme, ki so jih povzročili zapleteni pogoji za upravičenost, ki se uporabljajo za upravičence do donacij, je 26. maja 2010 sprejela Sporočilo (1) drugim institucijam, v katerem predlaga, da bi bila raven dopustnega tveganja napake na področju raziskav od 2 do 5-odstotna.
The proposed level of tolerable risk of error is established taking into account the cost-effectiveness of the controls and an acceptable level of residual error that is justified in the light of these costs. 
Predlagana raven dopustnega tveganja napake se določi ob upoštevanju stroškovne učinkovitosti nadzora in dopustne stopnje preostalih napak, ki je upravičena zaradi teh stroškov.
8.12. Concerning these three cases the Commission would like to point out the following: _____________ (7) Seven out of these 21 concern the first contribution from the EU budget to the jointly managed GMES programme. 
8.12 Komisija želi glede teh treh primerov opozoriti na naslednje: _____________ (7) Sedem od teh 21 se nanaša na prvi prispevek iz proračuna EU za skupno upravljani program GMES.
(8) As there is no financial impact, these are considered as non-quan­ tifiable errors. 
(8) Ker te napake nimajo finančnega učinka, štejejo za količinsko neoprede­ ljive.
(9) See reservation concerning the rate of residual errors with regard to the accuracy of cost claims in FP6 grants in the Declaration of the Authorising Officer by Delegation in the 2009 Annual Activity Report of the Directorate General Enterprise and Industry. _____________ (1) COM(2010) 261 
(9) Glej pridržek v zvezi s stopnjo preostalih napak pri točnosti zahtevkov za povračilo stroškov v okviru donacij 6.
EN 9.11.2010 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 181 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S Examples of ineligible costs (a) The Commission will further investigate the case and recover any amount overpaid. 
SL 9.11.2010 UradnilistEvropskeunije 181 U G O T O V I T V E S O D I Š Č A O D G O VO R I KO M I S I J E Primeri neupravičenih stroškov (a) Komisija bo nadalje proučila primer in izterjala vsak znesek, ki je bil preplačan.
The ex post controls carried out on behalf of the Commission did detect a number of deficiencies in the cost statements. 
Med naknadnimi kontrolami, izvedenimi v imenu Komisije, so bile ugotovljene pomanjkljivosti v izjavah o stroških.
However, their conclusion with regard to the eligibility of indirect costs differed from the Court’s observations. 
Vendar se je iz njih izhajajoča ugotovitev glede upravičenosti posrednih stroškov razlikovala od opažanj Sodišča.
Although hours were indeed double booked on different projects, it was concluded that this was mainly due to weak project management by the beneficiary and not done intentionally. (b) The error observed relates to a misinterpretation of the FP7 eligibility rules with regard to the standard productive hours. 
Čeprav so bile ure za različne projekte dejansko knjižene dvakrat, je bilo ugotovljeno, da je do tega prišlo predvsem zato, ker je upravičenec slabo vodil projekt, in ni bilo storjeno namenoma. (b) Opažena napaka se nanaša na napačno razlago pravil 7. OP glede upravičenosti v zvezi s standardnim številom produktivnih ur.
The Commission will make the necessary correction and the observation will be extrapolated to other projects managed by this beneficiary. (c) The payment made to ESA in 2009, which was audited by the Court, was the first contribution from the EU budget to the jointly managed GMES programme. 
Komisija bo naredila ustrezni popravek, ugotovitev pa se bo ekstrapolirala na druge projekte, ki jih vodi ta upravičenec. (c) Plačilo, izvršeno agenciji ESA v letu 2009, ki ga je revidiralo Sodišče, je bil prvi prispevek iz proračuna EU k skupno vodenemu programu GMES.
Under the terms of the Delegation Agreement signed between the Commission and ESA, the annual transfer of funds by the Commission is independent from the amount reported in the annual financial report submitted by ESA. 
Pod pogoji sporazuma o prenosu pooblastil, ki sta ga podpisali Komisija in agencija ESA, letni prenos sredstev s strani Komisije ni odvisen od zneska iz letnega finančnega poročila, ki ga predloži agencija ESA.
Possible errors found in ESA’s annual financial report did not affect the legality and regularity of the payment. 
Morebitne napake, odkrite v letnem finančnem poročilu agencije ESA, niso vplivale na zakonitost in pravilnost plačil.
The Commission considers that, also taking into account costs initially not included in the financial report, the costs reported by ESA were 2 % too high. 
Po mnenju Komisije so bili stroški, ki jih je sporočila agencija ESA, tudi upoštevajoč stroške, ki sprva niso bili vključeni v finančno poročilo, za 2 % previsoki.
This will be corrected before making the final payment at the end of the programme. 
To bo popravljeno pred izvršitvijo končnega plačila ob koncu programa.
Examples of ineligible costs (a) 6 t h F r a m e w o r k P r o g r a m m e The project audited was managed by a beneficiary who was implementing five FP6 projects in total financed by two different Directorates General of the Commission. 
Primeri neupravičenih stroškov (a) 6 . o k v i r n i p r o g r a m Revidirani projekt je upravljal upravičenec, ki je skupno izvajal pet projektov 6. OP, ki sta jih financirala dva različna generalna direktorata Komisije.
By examining the timesheets of all projects, it was noted that the beneficiary was overcharging and even double booking hours on these Community funded projects. 
Pri pregledu časovnic vseh projektov je bilo ugotovljeno, da je upravičenec pri teh projektih, ki jih financira Skupnost, zaračunaval preveč delovnih ur ali jih celo dvakrat knjižil.
In addition the beneficiary significantly overcharged its indirect costs. 
Poleg tega je prijavil bistveno previsoke posredne stroške.
The total error detected amounted to 21 % of the declared costs (or around 146 000 euro). 
Skupna ugotovljena napaka je znašala 21 % prijavljenih stroškov (ali približno 146 000 EUR).
These serious deficiencies in the cost statements were not detected by the firm which provided the audit certificate nor were they detected during the two ex-post controls carried out by another external audit firm on behalf of the Commission. (b) 7 t h F r a m e w o r k P r o g r a m m e Since 2004, the beneficiary has participated in six projects financed under FP6 and in eight projects financed under FP7. 
Podjetje, ki je izdalo revizijsko potrdilo, ni odkrilo teh resnih pomanjkljivosti v izjavah o stroških, prav tako pa niso bile ugotovljene pri dveh naknadnih kontrolah, ki ju je za Komisijo izvedlo drugo zunanje revizijsko podjetje. (b) 7 . o k v i r n i p r o g r a m Upravičenec je od leta 2004 sodeloval pri šestih projektih, financiranih v okviru 6. OP, in osmih projektih, financiranih v okviru 7. OP.
The total Community funding received since 2006 is approximately 1 million euro. 
Od leta 2006 je skupno prejel približno 1 milijon EUR sredstev Skupnosti.
Consequently, for the one project audited the costs declared were overcharged by more than 17 % (or around 7 800 euro). 
Posledično so bili pri revidiranem projektu prijavljeni za več kot 17 % (ali približno 7 800 EUR) previsoki stroški.
This methodology was also applied to the other 13 projects. (c) 7 t h F r a m e w o r k P r o g r a m m e — J o i n t m a n agem e n t ESA submits annual financial reports which show the use made of the funds received from the EU (see paragraph 8.8). 
Ta metodologija se je uporabljala pri še 13 drugih projektih. (c) 7 . o k v i r n i p r o g r a m – s k u p n o u p r a v - l ja n je ESA vsako leto predloži finančno poročilo, v katerem je opisano, kako so bila porabljena sredstva, prejeta od EU (glej odstavek 8.8).
The Court examined the 2008 Annual Report, which was submitted to the Commission on 19 March 2009 and amounted to 20,2 million euro of expenditure. 
Sodišče je preučilo letno poročilo za leto 2008, ki je bilo predloženo Komisiji 19. marca 2009 in je pokrivalo 20,2 milijona EUR odhodkov.
The Court noted the inclusion of costs which should not be funded by the Community or costs which were insufficiently supported for an amount of close to 10 % of the audited sample (or approximately 1,3 million euro) and serious weaknesses in the procurement rules and procedures (10). _____________ (10) See reservation concerning the reliability of the financial reporting by ESA in the Declaration given by the Director-General in the 2009 Annual Activity Report of the Directorate General Enterprise and Industry. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so približno 10 % revidiranega vzorca (ali približno 1,3 milijona EUR) predstavljali stroški, ki jih ne bi smela financirati Skupnost, in stroški s premalo dokazili, v pravilih in postopkih za oddajo javnega naročila pa so bile resne slabosti (10). _____________ (10) Glej pridržek v zvezi z zanesljivostjo finančnega poročanja ESA, v izjavi generalnega direktorja v letnem poročilu o dejavnostih za leto 2009 Generalnega direktorata za podjetništvo in industrijo.
EN 182 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 9.11.2010 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S While the Commission agrees that some procurement procedures should be further aligned with the EC rules, the particular nature of the Space procurement activities should be taken into account. 
SL 182 UradnilistEvropskeunije 9.11.2010 U G O T O V I T V E S O D I Š Č A O D G O VO R I KO M I S I J E Čeprav se Komisija strinja, da bi bilo treba nekatere postopke oddaje javnega naročila nadalje uskladiti s pravili ES, je treba pri naročilih na področju vesolja upoštevati njihovo svojevrstno naravo.
The Commission considers that ESA procurement rules and procedures ensure best value for money in the specific area of Space procurement. Effectiveness of systems 8.13. 
Komisija meni, da pravila in postopki za oddajo javnega naročila agencije ESA zagotavljajo najboljše razmerje med kakovostjo in ceno pri oddajanju javnih naročil na področju vesolja.
TheCommissionestablishedvariouscontrolscovering the full expenditure cycle in order to mitigate the risk of incorrect or irregular payments. 
Uspešnost sistemov 8.13 Komisija je vzpostavila različne kontrole, ki pokrivajo celoten cikel odhodkov, da bi ublažila tveganje netočnih ali nepravilnih plačil.
The Court assessed the effec­ tiveness of the operation of the ex-ante controls on payments, the reliability of the audit certification system and the Commission’s ex-post controls of reimbursed expenditure. 8.14. 
Sodišče je ocenilo uspešnost delovanja pred­ hodnih kontrol za plačila, zanesljivost sistema revizijskega potrjevanja in naknadne kontrole povrnjenih odhodkov, ki jih izvaja Komisija.
The purpose of the ex-ante controls is to verify the regularity and the soundness of the financial management of the payments. 
Predhodne kontrole 8.15 Namen predhodnih kontrol je preveriti, ali je finančno poslovodenje plačil pravilno in dobro.
They cover both the operational and financial aspects, notably the quality of the deliverables, compliance with the contractual requirements and the correctness of the calculation of the amount to be paid. 
Zajemajo tako opera­ tivne kot finančne vidike, zlasti kakovost rezultatov, skladnost s pogodbenimi zahtevami in točnost izračuna zneska za plačilo.
In order to take into consideration the inherent limited nature of such ex-ante controls, the Directorate General Enterprise and Industry has enhanced its ex-ante control strategy notably by carrying out detailed desk checks (11) and performing ex-ante audits of beneficiaries systems. _____________ (11) By for instance requesting supporting documents such as invoices prior to the payment being made. 
Ker je narava takšnih predhodnih kontrol sama po sebi omejena, je Generalni direktorat za podjetništvo in indu­ strijo okrepil svojo strategijo zanje, zlasti z izvajanjem podrobnih dokumentacijskih pregledov (11) in predhodnih revizij sistemov, ki jih uporabljajo upravičenci. _____________ (11) Na primer tako, da je pred izvršitvijo plačila zahteval dokazila, kot so računi.
9.11.2010 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 183 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S 8.17. The audit of the sample of the 80 payments mentioned in paragraph 8.9 did not reveal any significant weaknesses in the operation of the ex-ante desk checks. 
9.11.2010 UradnilistEvropskeunije 183 U G O T O V I T V E S O D I Š Č A 8.17 Revizija vzorca z 80 plačili, omenjena v odstavku 8.9, ni pokazala nobenih bistvenih slabosti pri izvajanju pred­ hodnih dokumentacijskih pregledov.
However for policy area 02 — Enterprise, the Court noted that out of 48 payments tested 24 were affected by weaknesses in the ex-ante controls. 
Vendar je Sodišče glede področja politike 02 – podjetništvo opazilo, da so na 24 od 48 preizkušenih plačil vplivale slabosti v predhodnih kontrolah.
In the case of the Research Executive Agency (12), the ex-ante controls failed to detect five regularity errors. 
V primeru Izvajalske agencije za raziskave(12) s predhodnimi kontrolami ni bilo ugotovljenih pet napak v zvezi s pravil­ nostjo.
In the case of ESA, prior to the signing of the agreement for the funding of GMES (see paragraph 8.8), the Commission did not clearly define the eligible costs of the jointly funded activities and did not address the procurement weaknesses. 
V primeru ESA pred podpisom sporazuma o financi­ ranju GMES (glej odstavek 8.8) Komisija ni jasno opredelila upravičenih stroškov skupno financiranih dejavnosti in odpra­ vila slabosti pri oddaji javnih naročil.
In addition, the Commission did not formalize any strategy for ex-ante controls till February 2010 (see paragraph 8.26). 
Poleg tega vse do februarja 2010 ni formalizirala nobene strategije za predhodne kontrole (glej odstavek 8.26).
T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S 8.17. The Commission agrees with the Court’s assessment that the ex ante checks under policy area 02 — Enterprise did not reveal any significant weaknesses. 
O D G O VO R I KO M I S I J E 8.17 Komisija se strinja z oceno Sodišča, da se pri predhodnih pregledih v okviru področja politike 02 – podjetništvo niso pokazale nobene bistvene slabosti.
The Commission considers that the ex ante checks under policy area 02 — Enterprise are proportionate and effective. 
Komisija meni, da so predhodni pregledi v okviru področja politike 02 – podjetništvo sorazmerni in učinkoviti.
Minor discrep­ ancies do not affect the effectiveness of the ex ante checks. 
Manjša odstopanja tako ne vplivajo na učinkovitost predhodnih pregledov.
To eliminate these minor discrepancies would not be cost efficient. 
Odprava teh manjših odstopanj ne bi bila stroškovno učinkovita.
With regard to the Research Executive Agency, three of the five cases mentioned relate to one and the same empowerment of an agent in the payment workflow which the Court deemed incorrect. 
Glede Izvajalske agencije za raziskave se trije od petih omenjenih primerov nanašajo na eno in isto pooblastitev uslužbenca v finančnem krogu, ki je po mnenju Sodišča nepravilna.
The Commission does not share the view of the Court that there are legality/regularity errors relating to the empowerment by the auth­ orising officer of staff having acted for the financial circuit, as there is no regulatory requirement to formally appoint staff in the various functions. 
Komisija se ne strinja s Sodiščem, da gre v zvezi s tem, da je odredbodajalec pooblastil uslužbence, ki so delovali za finančni krog, za napake pri zakoni­ tosti/pravilnosti, saj ni nobene zakonske zahteve, da bi uradno imeno­ vali uslužbence na različne funkcije.
The fact that the eligible costs of jointly funded activities are not defined in every detail is inherent to activities under Joint Management in general and to the nature of the GMES programme in particular. 
Dejstvo, da upravičeni stroški dejavnosti, ki so skupno financirane, niso podrobno opredeljeni, je značilno za dejavnosti v okviru skupnega vodenja na splošno ter še zlasti za naravo programa GMES.
The programme involves a technically complex space project including the development of Sentinel satellites, which makes it difficult to separate elements that are funded via different sources in the development and procurement process. 
V program je vključen tehnično zapleten vesoljski projekt, ki zajema razvoj satelitov Sentinel, zaradi česar je težko ločiti elemente, ki se financirajo iz različnih virov v postopku razvoja in oddaje javnega naročila.
The Commission considers the ex ante assessment of requirements for ‘Joint Management’ performed before entering into the agreement to be sufficient. 
Komisija meni, da je predhodna ocena zahtev za „skupno vodenje“, opravljena pred sklenitvijo sporazuma, zadostna.
The preparation of the monitoring and control framework for the funding of GMES already started in 2008, but had to be adapted and completed in the light of experience with the implementation of the project. 
Okvir za spremljanje in kontrolo za financiranje GMES se je začel pripravljati že leta 2008, a ga je bilo treba na podlagi izkušenj pri izvajanju projekta spremeniti in dopolniti.