natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
37 However the Commission did not thoroughly and consistently address the following aspects which are specifically included in the Council recommendation: — ICT/digital skills: The Commission had identified that ICT skills could offer great potential for the crea‐ tion of sustainable jobs23. 
37 Vendar pa Komisija ni temeljito in do‐ sledno obravnavala naslednjih vidikov, ki so izrecno navedeni v priporočilu Sveta: – Znanje in spretnosti s področja IKT (informacijske in komunikacijske tehnologije) in digitalnega področja: Komisija je ugotovila, da bi lahko znanje in spretnosti s področja IKT nudi‐ li velike možnosti za odpiranje trajnostnih delovnih mest23.
Moreo‐ ver, it highlighted that currently ‘... the number of ICT graduates is insufficient in order to fill all the vacancies in the ICT sector, where, even in times of recent economic turmoil, the demand for ICT practi‐ tioners has been growing at a rate of 3 % per year’24. — While the Commission raised the fact that the Italian and Lithu‐ anian YGIPs did not contain any measures for enhancing ICT/digital skills, it did not do so for Ireland and Portugal even though the reference to ICT/digital skills was equally absent in their YGIPs. 
Poleg tega je poudarila, da v času njene‐ ga poročanja število diplomantov na področju IKT ni zadoščalo za zapolnitev vseh prostih delovnih mest v sektorju IKT, v katerem je celo v času nedavnih gospodarskih težav povpraševanje po delavcih na tem področju raslo s 3‐odstotno stopnjo na leto24. Komisija je sicer opozorila, da itali‐ janski in litovski INJM nista vključe‐ vala nobenih ukrepov za krepitev znanja in spretnosti s področja IKT in digitalnega področja, tega pa ni storila za Irsko in Portugal‐ sko, čeprav tudi ti državi v svojih INJM nista omenjali tega znanja in spretnosti.
Mutual obligation: The Coun‐ cil recommendation recognises ‘young people’s individual respon‐ sibility in finding a route into eco‐ nomic activity.’ 
Vzajemna obveznost: V priporo‐ čilu Sveta se priznava „posamezna odgovornost mladih, da najdejo pot v gospodarsko dejavnost.”
In some Member States, young unemployed persons risk the removal or reduction of unemployment or social assistance benefits if they do not take up any reasonable offer of employment, internship, training or education. 
V nekaterih državah članicah mlade brezposelne osebe tvegajo odvzem ali zmanjšanje nadomestil za brezposelnost ali prejemkov socialne pomoči, če ne sprejmejo kakršne koli razumne ponudbe za zaposlitev, pripravništvo, usposa‐ bljanje ali izobraževanje.
Failure to consider this principle risks limiting the effectiveness of a Youth Guarantee scheme since it has a detrimental effect on partici‐ pants’ commitment and reduces the responsibility of the Member States to provide a good qual‐ ity offer. 
Neupo‐ števanje tega načela lahko omeji uspešnost programa jamstva za mlade, saj negativno vpliva na zavezanost udeležencev in zmanj‐ šuje odgovornost držav članic, da zagotovijo kakovostno ponudbo.
The presence of mutual obligation was not assessed by the Commission for any of the YGIPs reviewed. 
Obstoja vzajemne obveznosti ni Komisija ocenila za nobenega od pregledanih INJM.
The Court found that out of the five YGIPs reviewed only that from Ireland included a spe‐ cific reference to this principle. 
Sodišče je ugo‐ tovilo, da se je od petih pregleda‐ nih INJM le irski izrecno skliceval na to načelo.
23 COM(2008) 868/3 ‘New skills for new jobs, Anticipating and matching labour market and skills needs’. 
23 COM(2008) 868/3 z naslovom Nova znanja in spretnosti za nova delovna mesta – Napovedovanje in usklajevanje potreb trga dela ter znanja in spretnosti.
24 European Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2012) 409 final, p. 
24 Delovni dokument služb Komisije, SWD(2012) 409 final, str.
Observations 22 25 Recommendation 25 to Member States. 
Opažanja 22 25 Priporočilo 25 državam članicam.
26 In the sample audited only Italy received such a technical visit. 
26 Od držav v revidiranem vzorcu je bil tehnični obisk opravljen samo v Italiji.
27 In addition to Lithuania, 12 other Member States submitted revised YGIPs by June 2014 (Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden and Slovakia), following the Commission’s request. — Mutual learning: The Council recommendation calls on Mem‐ ber States ‘... to promote mutual learning activities at national, regional and local level between all parties involved in combating youth unemployment, in order to improve the design and delivery of future YG schemes’25. 
27 Poleg Litve je spremenjene različice INJM do junija 2014 na zahtevo Komisije predložilo še 12 drugih držav članic (Belgija, Bolgarija, Grčija, Španija, Hrvaška, Madžarska, Latvija, Nizozemska, Poljska, Romunija, Švedska in Slovaška). – Vzajemno učenje: Priporočilo Sve‐ ta poziva države članice, naj „na na‐ cionalni, regionalni in lokalni ravni spodbujajo dejavnosti vzajemnega učenja vseh strani, vključenih v od‐ pravljanje brezposelnosti mladih, da se izboljša oblikovanje in izved‐ ba prihodnjih programov jamstva za mlade”25.
The Commis‐ sion did not assess this relevant aspect, which is linked to the cost effectiveness of implementation in the Member States, and the Court found that with the exception of the French YGIP the principle of ‘mutual learning’ is not included in any of the reviewed YGIPs. Not all Member States sub‐ mitted a revised YGIP fol‐ lowing the Commission’s assessment 38 During the assessment process, the Commission, where appropriate, asked all Member States covered by this report for further clarification and/or pointing out the main weaknesses of their draft YGIPs in written feedback. 
Komisija ni ocenila tega pomembnega vidika, ki je povezan s stroškovno učinkovi‐ tostjo izvajanja v državah članicah. Sodišče je ugotovilo, da načelo vzajemnega učenja ni vključeno v nobenega od pregledanih INJM za mlade, razen v francoskega. Nekatere države članice niso predložile spremenjenega INJM, zatem ko ga je ocenila Komisija 38 Komisija je med postopkom ocenjeva‐ nja, kadar je bilo ustrezno, pozvala vse države članice, zajete v tem poročilu, naj zagotovijo dodatna pojasnila, in/ ali s pisnimi povratnimi informacijami opozorila na glavne slabosti njihovih osnutkov INJM.
The Commission also held bilateral meetings with the Member States to further discuss the shortcomings identified. 
Poleg tega je organi‐ zirala dvostranska srečanja z državami članicami, da bi se nadalje pogovorili o ugotovljenih pomanjkljivostih.
Moreover, the Commission carried out technical visits to certain Member States to clarify a number of issues and identify outstanding prob‐ lems in the YGIPs26. 
Izved‐ la je tudi tehnične obiske v nekaterih državah članicah, da bi razjasnila šte‐ vilna vprašanja in ugotovila neodprav‐ ljene težave v INJM26.
39 A number of important shortcomings remained in the YGIPs after the bilater‐ al meetings and the Commission asked for additional information from all Member States. 
39 Po dvostranskih srečanjih so v INJM os‐ tale številne pomembne pomanjkljivo‐ sti in Komisija je vse pregledane države članice prosila za dodatne informacije.
For the Member States reviewed, the Court’s analysis showed that Lithuania was the only one which had committed itself to submitting a revised version of the YGIP27. 
Za pregledane države članice je ana‐ liza, ki jo je izvedlo Sodišče, pokazala, da je bila Litva edina, ki se je zavezala, da bo predložila spremenjeno različico INJM27.
France, Italy and Portugal, were all invited to present a new version of their imple‐ mentation plans but they declined for different reasons. 
Francija, Italija in Portugalska so bile povabljene, naj predložijo novo različico svojih izvedbenih načrtov, vendar so to iz različnih razlogov zavr‐ nile.
For instance, ac‐ cording to the Commission, the Italian authorities replied that they would ‘... focus on the careful drawing up of relevant OPs rather than rewriting a new YGIP’. 
Na primer, po navedbah Komisije so italijanski organi odgovorili, da se bodo osredotočili na skrbno pripravo ustreznih operativnih programov, ne pa na novo sestavili INJM.
Observations 23 Commission assessment of YGIPs not sufficiently coor‐ dinated with its assessment of the ex ante conditional‐ ity for ESF/YEI operational programmes 40 According to the CPR regulation for the 2014–20 programming period, Member States must fulfil specific ex ante conditionalities to ensure an effective and efficient use of the EU funds. 
Opažanja 23 Ocena INJM, ki jo je pripravila Komisija, ni dovolj usklajena z njeno oceno predhodnih pogojenosti za operativne programe ESS/PZM 40 V skladu z uredbo o skupnih določbah (CPR) za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 morajo države članice izpolnjevati po‐ sebne predhodne pogojenosti, da se zagotovi uspešna in učinkovita poraba sredstev EU.
The CPR28 states that ‘the assess‐ ment of fulfilment by the Commission shall be limited to the criteria laid down in the Fund‐specific rules and in Part II of Annex XI and shall respect national and regional competences to decide on the specific and adequate policy measures including the content of strategies’. The relevant investment priority for ESF/YEI OPs is the ‘sustain‐ able integration into the labour market of young people, in particular for NEETs, including young people at risk of social exclusion and young peo‐ ple from marginalised communities, including through the implementation of the Youth Guarantee’. 
Uredba določa: „Ocena izpolnjevanja Komisije je omejena na merila, določena v pravilih za posamezne sklade, in v delu II Priloge XI, ter upo‐ števa nacionalne in regionalne pri‐ stojnosti pri odločanju o posebnih in ustreznih političnih ukrepih, vključno z vsebino strategij.”28 Ustrezna investi‐ cijska prednostna naloga operativnih programov ESS/PZM je trajnostno vključevanje mladih, zlasti NEET, na trg dela, vključno z mladimi, ki jim grozi socialna izključenost, in mladimi iz marginaliziranih skupnosti, tudi z izva‐ janjem jamstva za mlade.
41 The Commission must assess the consistency and adequacy of the information provided by Member States in relation to the specific ex ante conditionality before the adoption of an OP29. 
41 Komisija mora pred sprejetjem opera‐ tivnega programa oceniti skladnost in ustreznost informacij, ki jih posredu‐ jejo države članice v zvezi s posebno predhodno pogojenostjo29.
The ex ante conditionality for YEI is the existence of a strategic policy framework for promoting youth employment, including through the implementation of the Youth Guar‐ antee30. 
Predhodna pogojenost za PZM je obstoj strateškega okvira politike za spodbujanje zaposlo‐ vanja mladih, tudi z izvajanjem jamstva za mlade30.
The Court considers that the Commission’s assessment of this spe‐ cific ex ante conditionality for YEI and the assessment of the YGIP should be closely coordinated to ensure that the ESF/YEI OP and the Youth Guarantee scheme are in line. 
Sodišče meni, da bi bilo treba oceno te posebne predhodne pogojenosti za PZM, ki jo opravi Ko‐ misija, tesno usklajevati z oceno INJM, da se zagotovi usklajenost operativnih programov ESS/PZM s programom jamstva za mlade.
42 The Court assessed whether the short‐ comings identified by the Commission during the assessment of YGIPs were also addressed by it when drawing conclusions on the fulfilment, or other‐ wise, of the ex ante conditionalities. 
42 Sodišče je ocenilo, ali je Komisija pomanjkljivosti, ki jih je ugotovila pri ocenjevanju INJM, obravnavala tudi pri oblikovanju zaključkov o izpolnje‐ vanju ali neizpolnjevanju predhodnih pogojenosti.
43 The Court found that the Commission considered the ex ante conditionalities related to ESF/YEI OPs as ‘fulfilled’ despite the YGIPs being evaluated by it as ‘very limited’ or ‘partial’ (see Annex III). 
43 Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je Komisija štela predhodne pogojenosti v zvezi z operativnimi programi ESS/PZM za izpolnjene, čeprav so INJM dobi‐ li oceno „zelo omejeno” ali „delno” (glej Prilogo III).
The Court considers this as a missed opportunity for the Com‐ mission to ensure that Member States introduce a youth employment strat‐ egy in accordance with their political commitment to the Youth Guarantee scheme prior to the approval of the ESF/YEI OPs for the 2014–20 program‐ ming period. 
Po njegovem mnenju je Komisija s tem zamudila priložnost, da bi zagotovila, da države članice uve‐ dejo strategijo za zaposlovanje mladih v skladu s svojo politično zavezo pro‐ gramu jamstva za mlade pred odobrit‐ vijo operativnih programov ESS/PZM za programsko obdobje 2014–2020.
In addition, the Court’s review showed that the checks carried out by the Commission for the approv‐ al of OPs do not cover how the ESF/YEI OPs, in particular, will contribute to the effective implementation of the Youth Guarantee. 
Poleg tega je pregled Sodišča pokazal, da pregledi, ki jih je izvedla Komisija pri odobritvi operativnih programov, ne zajemajo tega, kako bodo zlasti operativni programi ESS/PZM prispe‐ vali k uspešnemu izvajanju jamstva za mlade.
28 Article 19(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
28 Člen 19(3) Uredbe (EU) št.
29 Article 19(1) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
29 Člen 19(1) in (3) Uredbe (EU) št.
30 Annex XI of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
30 Priloga XI k Uredbi (EU) št.
Observations 24 The Court identified a number of risks to the effective implementation of the Youth Guarantee Scheme 44 The Court also considered whether potential risks to the effective imple‐ mentation of the Youth Guarantee Scheme could be identified when reviewing the Commission’s assess‐ ment. 
Opažanja 24 Sodišče je ugotovilo številna tveganja za uspešno izvajanje programa jamstva za mlade 44 Sodišče je pri pregledu ocene Komisije preučilo tudi, ali je bilo mogoče ugo‐ toviti morebitna tveganja za uspešno izvajanje programa jamstva za mlade.
In particular, the adequacy of the Youth Guarantee funding, the way the good quality offer is defined and the monitoring of the Youth Guarantee Scheme were considered. 
Posebej je preučilo zadostnost finan‐ ciranja jamstva za mlade, opredelitev kakovostne ponudbe in spremljanje programa jamstva za mlade.
Risk that total funding may not be adequate 45 The implementation of Youth Guar‐ antee schemes in Member States will be a costly measure, especially when considering the current scale of youth unemployment across the EU. 
Tveganje, da skupno financiranje morda ni zadostno 45 Izvajanje programov jamstva za mlade v državah članicah bo drag ukrep, zlasti ob upoštevanju sedanje ravni brezposelnosti mladih v EU.
The Court considers that a robust global estimate of the necessary funding for the Youth Guarantee Scheme can only be established based on reliable figures for the cost of implementing the Youth Guarantee in each Mem‐ ber State. 
Sodišče meni, da je mogoče dobro globalno oceno potrebnega financiranja za program jamstva pripraviti samo na podlagi zanesljivih številčnih podatkov o stroških izvajanja programa jamstva za mlade v vsaki državi članici.
Moreover, there should be clarity on the sources from which the national Youth Guarantee schemes are to be financed. 
Poleg tega bi moralo biti jasno, iz katerih virov bodo financirani nacionalni pro‐ grami jamstva za mlade.
46 The Court notes that the Youth Guar‐ antee Scheme aims not only to provide financial support to young people (unemployed or at risk of being unem‐ ployed), but also fundamental struc‐ tural reforms in the medium and long term. 
46 Sodišče opozarja, da namen progra‐ ma jamstva za mlade ni le zagotoviti finančne podpore mladim (brezposel‐ nim ali ki jim grozi brezposelnost), am‐ pak tudi temeljne strukturne reforme v srednje‐ in dolgoročnem obdobju.
It is therefore evident that the Youth Guarantee will require substan‐ tial investment. 
Zato je očitno, da bo jamstvo za mlade zahtevalo znatne investicije.
47 Moreover, the amount of national funding which is made available to the Youth Guarantee Scheme has not yet been fully determined. 
47 Poleg tega znesek nacionalnega finan‐ ciranja, ki bo dan na voljo za program jamstva za mlade, še ni bil v celoti določen.
According to the Commission’s analysis of the YGIPs submitted by the Member States, nine31 out of 28 Member States have not provided any information on the envisaged national funding. 
Analiza, ki jo je za INJM, ki so jih predložile države članice, opravila Komisija, kaže, da devet31 od 28 držav članic še ni predložilo nobenih infor‐ macij o predvidenem nacionalnem financiranju.
The re‐ maining Member States have provided information with a varying degree of detail. 
Preostale države člani‐ ce so zagotovile različno podrobne informacije.
No impact assessment carried out for the Youth Guarantee Scheme 48 In principle all major Commission leg‐ islative, budgetary and policy defin‐ ing initiatives with significant impact must undergo an IA32. 
Za program jamstva za mlade ni bila izvedena ocena učinka 48 Načeloma je treba za vse velike po‐ bude Komisije na področjih zakono‐ daje, proračuna in oblikovanja politik, ki imajo bistven učinek, pripraviti oceno učinka32.
IAs must specify the costs and benefits of proposals, how they occur and who is affected. 
V teh ocenah mora biti navedeno, kakšni so stroški in koristi predlogov, kako nastanejo in na koga vplivajo.
According to the Commission’s guide‐ lines, all impacts should be quantified and monetised where possible and appropriate, based on robust methods and reliable data33. 
V skladu z navodili Komisije bi morali biti vsi učinki, kadar je mogo‐ če in ustrezno, količinsko in finančno ovrednoteni na podlagi dobrih metod in zanesljivih podatkov33.
31 Estonia, Ireland, Spain, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
31 Estonija, Španija, Finska, Irska, Luksemburg, Malta, Poljska, Švedska in Združeno kraljestvo.
32 Special Report No 3/2010 ‘Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision‐making?’, paragraph 3 (http://eca.europa.eu). 
32 Odstavek 3 Posebnega poročila št. 3/2010 – Ocene učinka v institucijah EU: ali pomagajo pri odločanju? (http://eca.europa.eu).
33 European Commission, ‘Impact assessment guidelines’, SEC(2009) 92. 
33 Evropska komisija, Smernice za oceno učinka, SEC(2009) 92.
Observations 25 49 The Court notes that the Commis‐ sion, before proposing the Youth Guarantee scheme, did not carry out any impact assessment. 
Opažanja 25 49 Sodišče ugotavlja, da Komisija, pre‐ den je predlagala program jamstva za mlade, ni izvedla ocene učinka.
The Commis‐ sion’s staff working document (SWD) which accompanied the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Estab‐ lishing a Youth Guarantee only made reference to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) 2012 estimates (see Commission staff working document section 2.3) and provided preliminary estimates for some Member States (Austria, Finland, Sweden and the UK)34. 
Delovni dokument služb Komisije (SWD), priložen predlogu priporočila Sveta o vzpostavitvi jamstva za mlade, se je skliceval le na ocene Mednarodne organizacije dela iz leta 2012 (glej od‐ delek 2.3 delovnega dokumenta služb Komisije) in zagotovil predhodne ocene za nekaj držav članic (Avstrija, Finska, Švedska in Združeno kraljestvo)34.
As a result, apart from the ILO es‐ timates, there is no information on the potential global cost of implementing such a scheme across the EU. 
Zato razen ocen Mednarodne organizacije dela ni nobenih informacij o morebi‐ tnih globalnih stroških izvajanja takega programa v vsej EU.
The ILO presented different estimates, in 2012 and 2013, of annual funding requirements for the implementation of a Youth Guarantee 50 In February 2015, the Commission estimated that for the entire 2014–20 programming period, 12.7 billion euro of EU funding will be allocated to finance the schemes. 
Mednarodna organizacija dela je v letih 2012 in 2013 predstavila različne ocene letnih potreb po financiranju za izvajanje jamstva za mlade 50 Komisija je februarja 2015 ocenila, da bo v celotnem programskem obdobju 2014–2020 za financiranje programov dodeljene 12,7 milijarde EUR financira‐ nja EU.
Previously, in April 2014 the Commission estimated35 that this would be complemented by national, regional and even private resources of 4 billion euro. 
Pred tem je aprila 2014 ocenila35, da bodo ta znesek dopolnjevale 4 mili‐ jarde EUR iz nacionalnih, regionalnih in celo zasebnih virov.
This total of 16.7 billion euro amounts to around 2.4 billion euro per year. 
Ta skupni znesek v višini 16,7 milijarde EUR znaša približno 2,4 milijarde EUR letno.
51 In 2012, the ILO reported that the estimated annual cost of effectively implementing the Youth Guarantee in the euro area would be 0.2 % of GDP36 or 0.45 % of government spending, which amounts to 21 billion euro37. 
51 Mednarodna organizacija dela je leta 2012 poročala, da bi bili ocenjeni letni stroški uspešnega izvajanja jamstva za mlade v euroobmočju 0,2 % BDP36 ali 0,45 % javne porabe, kar znaša 21 milijard EUR37.
ILO cost estimates published in 2013 based on six countries of the euro area38 ranged between approximately 0.5 % and 1.5 % of GDP39. 
Ocene stroškov, ki jih je leta 2013 na podlagi šestih držav euroobmočja38 objavila Mednarodna organizacija dela, so segale približno od 0,5 % do 1,5 % BDP39.
According to ILO, these implementation costs differ depending on the availability of the administrative infrastructure for the implementation of guarantee on a larger scale and the size of the eligi‐ ble population. 
Po navedbah Mednarodne organizacije dela se ti stroški izvajanja razlikujejo glede na razpoložljivost upravne infrastrukture za izvajanje jamstva v večjem obsegu in velikost upravičenega prebivalstva.
No robust estimate of costs for specific measures of the Youth Guarantee schemes 52 In 2013, the Commission request‐ ed Member States to provide a cost estimate of the planned measures and the related sources of funding when submitting their YGIPs. 
Ni dobre ocene stroškov za posebne ukrepe v okviru programov jamstva za mlade 52 Leta 2013 je Komisija države člani‐ ce pozvala, naj pri predložitvi INJM zagotovijo oceno stroškov načrtovanih ukrepov in navedejo s tem povezane vire financiranja.
In particular, Member States were asked to set out the sources of funding and its alloca‐ tion to the different key reforms and measures/initiatives in a financing plan, and to provide specific informa‐ tion on each of the measures (such as the cost per measure, the expected number of beneficiaries per measure, the percentage of the target popula‐ tion to be reached by each measure, the additional cost of new measures and the expected outcomes). 
Države članice so morale zlasti navesti vire financiranja in njihovo dodelitev za različne ključne reforme in ukrepe/pobude v načrtu financiranja ter zagotoviti posebne informacije o vsakem posameznemu ukrepu (kot so stroški za posamezen ukrep, pričakovano število upravičen‐ cev na ukrep, odstotek ciljne popu‐ lacije, ki naj bi ga posamezen ukrep dosegel, dodatni stroški novih ukrepov in pričakovani izidi).
34 European Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2012) 409 final, pp. 11–12. 
34 Delovni dokument služb Komisije, SWD(2012) 409 final, str. 11.
35 European Parliament Public Hearing, Committee on Budgets in cooperation with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Tuesday 1 April 2014, page 23. 
35 Javna razprava Evropskega parlamenta, Odbor za proračun skupaj z Odborom za zaposlovanje in socialne zadeve, torek, 1. aprila 2014, str.
36 ILO, Global Employment Outlook, ‘Global spill‐overs from advanced to emerging economies worsen the situation for young jobseekers’, September 2012, http://www.ilo.org 37 ILO, ‘Eurozone job crisis: trends and policy responses’, July 2012.The information was also published on the Commission website http://ec.europa.eu 38 Belgium, Ireland, Spain, France, Netherlands and Portugal. 
23. 36 Mednarodna organizacija dela, Global Employment Outlook, „Global spill-overs from advanced to emerging economies worsen the situation for young jobseekers”, september 2012 (http://www.ilo.org) 37 Mednarodna organizacija dela, Eurozone job crisis: trends and policy responses, julij 2012.