natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The EPPO will bring actions against criminals directly in front of national courts which should lead to more successful prosecutions and a better recovery of the defrauded money.  The proposal to amend the OLAF's Regulation 883/2013 (COM(2018)338) concerning investigations conducted by the OLAF as regards cooperation with the EPPO and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations was adopted in May 2018. 
EJT bo vlagalo tožbe zoper storilce kaznivih dejanj neposredno pred nacionalnimi sodišči, kar bi moralo privesti do uspešnejšega pregona in boljše izterjave prigoljufanega denarja.  Maja 2018 je bil sprejet predlog za spremembo uredbe o uradu OLAF št. 883/2013 (COM(2018) 338) o preiskavah, ki jih izvaja urad OLAF, v zvezi s sodelovanjem z EJT in učinkovitostjo preiskav urada OLAF.
While the EPPO will focus on criminal cases affecting the EU budget, such as corruption or fraud with EU funds, or cross-border VAT fraud criminal investigations, OLAF will continue its administrative investigations into fraud affecting the Union's financial interests in all Member States, including investigations leading to criminal prosecution in Member States that do not participate in the EPPO. 
Medtem ko se bo EJT osredotočilo na kazenske zadeve, ki vplivajo na proračun EU, kot so korupcija ali goljufije s sredstvi EU, ali kazenske preiskave čezmejnih goljufij na področju DDV, bo urad OLAF nadaljeval upravne preiskave goljufij, ki vplivajo na finančne interese Unije, v vseh državah članicah, vključno s preiskavami, ki pripeljejo do kazenskega pregona v državah članicah, ki v EJT ne sodelujejo.
The Commission proposal to amend OLAF’s Regulation 883/2013 aims to provide clarifications to the cooperation between the OLAF and the EPPO, and to ensure the widest possible protection of the EU's budget. 
Namen predloga Komisije za spremembo uredbe o uradu OLAF št. 883/2013 je razjasniti sodelovanje med uradom OLAF in EJT ter omogočiti čim širšo zaščito proračuna EU.
The proposal also aims to enhance the effectiveness of OLAF investigation tools, in particular checks and inspections, as well as access to bank account information.  The new Financial Regulation entered into force in July 2018 and reinforces the means to counter shell companies and the use of tax havens by intermediaries managing EU funds. 
Njegov namen je tudi izboljšati učinkovitost preiskovalnih orodij urada OLAF, zlasti pregledov in inšpekcij, ter tudi dostop do podatkov o bančnih računih.  Julija 2018 je začela veljati nova finančna uredba, s katero se krepijo sredstva za boj proti slamnatim družbam in uporabi davčnih oaz s strani posrednikov, ki upravljajo finančna sredstva EU.
It consolidates the European Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) by making it fully applicable to implementing partners under indirect management. 
Z njo se utrjuje evropski sistem za zgodnje odkrivanje in izključitev, saj določa, da ga lahko v celoti uporabljajo izvajalski partnerji v okviru posrednega upravljanja.
More generally, it simplifies financial rules, making them easier to control and less fraud prone.  The revision of the Financial Framework Regulation on decentralised agencies has been proposed by the Commission to strengthen the governance of EU decentralised agencies in particular in the area of fraud, notably with the introduction of an obligation for decentralised agencies to report cases of fraud or investigations to the Commission without delay and of the obligation on agencies to adjust their internal control systems where they run decentralised offices away from the main seat. 
Splošneje se z njo poenostavljajo finančna pravila, saj jih je lažje nadzorovati in so manj dovzetna za goljufije.  Komisija je predlagala revizijo uredbe o finančnem okviru v zvezi z decentraliziranimi agencijami, da bi se okrepilo upravljanje decentraliziranih agencij EU, zlasti na področju goljufij, in sicer z uvedbo obveznosti decentraliziranih agencij, da o primerih goljufij ali preiskavah nemudoma poročajo Komisiji, in obveznosti agencij, da prilagodijo svoje sisteme notranje kontrole, če vodijo decentralizirane urade zunaj glavnega sedeža.
This revision is targeted to enter into force by 1 January 2019.  The proposals for post-2020 spending programmes contain specific recitals and provisions regarding the protection of the EU financial interests, notably on the competences of OLAF. 
Ta revizija naj bi začela veljati najpozneje 1. januarja 2019.  Predlogi za programe porabe po letu 2020 vsebujejo posebne uvodne izjave in določbe v zvezi z zaščito finančnih interesov EU, zlasti glede pristojnosti urada OLAF.
Further anti-fraud provisions have been included in the proposal for a Common Provisions Regulation.  The update of the Commission’s Anti-Fraud Strategy (CAFS), originally adopted in 2011, is ongoing. 
V predlog uredbe o skupnih določbah so bile vključene dodatne določbe o boju proti goljufijam.  Posodobitev strategije Komisije za boj proti goljufijam, prvotno sprejete leta 2011, je v teku.
In this process, OLAF has compiled a qualitative fraud risk assessment as a synthesis of the contributions received from the different Commission services. 
Urad OLAF je v tem postopku sestavil kvalitativno oceno tveganja goljufij, ki je povzetek prispevkov, prejetih od različnih služb Komisije.
OBSERVATIONS Common reply to paragraphs 14-16: The issue of fraud measurement has been discussed and analysed intensively. 
PRIPOMBE Skupni odgovor na odstavke 14–16: Vprašanje merjenja goljufij je bilo intenzivno obravnavano in analizirano.
Although the Commission agrees with the ECA that it would be desirable, it is not possible to have an estimate of the undetected level of fraud reliable and defendable enough for evidence-based policy, also taking 5 
Čeprav se Komisija strinja z Evropskim računskim sodiščem, da bi bila taka ocena zaželena, ni mogoča ocena ravni 5
into account the constraint of the efficient use of the limited resources available to the Commission. 
neodkritih goljufij, ki bi bila dovolj zanesljiva in utemeljena za z dokazi podprto politiko, tako da bi se upoštevala tudi omejitev učinkovite uporabe omejenih virov, ki jih ima na voljo Komisija.
While useful for other purposes, the research methods suggested by the ECA would not be well-suited to this context and would risk leading to biased decision-making or, at least, to an added-value not proportionate to the cost. 
Čeprav so raziskovalne metode, ki jih predlaga Evropsko računsko sodišče, koristne za druge namene, v tem kontekstu ne bi bile primerne in bi lahko vodile do pristranskega odločanja ali vsaj do dodane vrednosti, ki ni sorazmerna s stroški.
This is further discussed in the replies to paragraphs 33–37. 
To je podrobneje obravnavano v odgovorih na odstavke 33–37.
On the basis of these considerations and in line with the provisions of Article 325(5) TFEU, the Commission has decided to focus on the scale and nature of irregularities and (suspected or established) fraud detected and reported via the well-established IMS and is constantly refining this method. 
Komisija se je na podlagi teh preudarkov in v skladu z določbami člena 325(5) PDEU odločila, da se bo osredotočila na obseg in naravo nepravilnosti in (sumov ali ugotovljenih) goljufij, odkritih in prijavljenih v uveljavljenem sistemu za upravljanje nepravilnosti, ter to metodo nenehno izpopolnjuje.
This approach provides solid knowledge about the weaknesses actually exploited by fraudsters. 
Ta pristop omogoča dobro poznavanje pomanjkljivosti, ki jih dejansko izkoriščajo goljufi.
The Commission is aware of the limitations of this approach, but considers that, at present, this is the most effective method. 
Komisija se zaveda omejitev tega pristopa, vendar meni, da je to za zdaj najučinkovitejša metoda.
Activities in the anti-fraud area should be seen as a continuously developing process that builds on achievements and developments, which may seem insufficient if checked against a theoretical model but need to be assessed in relation to the overall complexity of the system and its historical development. 
Dejavnosti na področju boja proti goljufijam je treba razumeti kot nenehno razvijajoč se proces, temelječ na dosežkih in razvoju, ki se lahko glede na teoretični model zdijo nezadostni, vendar jih je treba ocenjevati v povezavi s splošno kompleksnostjo sistema in njegovega zgodovinskega razvoja.
Such an evolutive approach paves the way for future improvements. 
Tak razvojni pristop tlakuje pot prihodnjim izboljšavam.
Further steps can be taken such as better exploiting the existing databases. 
Sprejeti je mogoče nadaljnje ukrepe, kot je boljše izkoriščanje obstoječih podatkovnih zbirk.
The Commission has continuously improved the quantity and quality of the irregularity reporting. 
Komisija nenehno izboljšuje količino in kakovost prijav nepravilnosti.
The reporting obligation and its derogations and limitations are presented in the material supporting the PIF Report and namely in the Commission Staff Working Document (2016)237 final (explicitly quoted also in relation to the PIF Report 2016). See Commission's replies to paragraphs 24–31. 
Obveznost prijavljanja ter odstopanja od te obveznosti in njene omejitve so predstavljeni v gradivu, na katerem temelji poročilo o zaščiti finančnih interesov, zlasti v delovnem dokumentu služb Komisije (2016)237 final (izrecno naveden tudi v povezavi s poročilom o zaščiti finančnih interesov za leto 2016).
First bullet point: The new "Handbook on reporting of irregularities in shared management", prepared by OLAF in cooperation with experts from the Member States, clearly indicates OLAF's final report as one of the facts generating the obligation on Member States to report. 
Prva točka: V novem „Priročniku za prijavljanje nepravilnosti pri deljenem upravljanju“, ki ga je urad OLAF pripravil v sodelovanju s strokovnjaki iz držav članic, je končno poročilo urada OLAF jasno navedeno kot eno od dejstev, ki za države članice povzroči nastanek obveznosti prijavljanja.
IMS provides for a specific field to indicate the reference number of the OLAF investigation. 
Sistem za upravljanje nepravilnosti ima posebno polje, v katerem se navede številka preiskave urada OLAF.
However, this key information may not always be known at the level of the reporting authority in the Member State. 
Vendar ta ključni podatek organu za prijavljanje v državi članici morda ni vedno znan.
The Commission notes that the quality of the data depends on the quality of the reporting by the Member States. 
Komisija opozarja, da je kakovost podatkov odvisna od kakovosti prijav držav članic.
Second bullet point: First sub-bullet point: Fraudulent cases arising from the activities of intermediate public bodies involved in implementing an operational programme through project selection or public tendering must be reported in IMS, with some limited exceptions (i.e. reporting threshold). 
Druga točka: Prva podtočka: Primere goljufij, ki izhajajo iz dejavnosti posredniških javnih organov, vključenih v izvajanje operativnega programa z izbiro projektov ali javnimi razpisi, je treba prijaviti v sistem za upravljanje nepravilnosti, z nekaterimi omejenimi izjemami (tj.prag prijavljanja).
The reference made by the ECA is related to the definition of "economic operator", which does not include public bodies exercising their prerogatives as public authority. 
Navedba Evropskega računskega sodišča se nanaša na opredelitev pojma „gospodarski subjekt“, ki ne vključuje teles javnega sektorja, ki svoja pooblastila izvajajo kot javni organi.
The "Handbook on reporting of irregularities in shared management" refers to the case-law of the European Court of Justice to limit the situations in which public bodies are not considered to act as an economic operator (therefore limiting the situations which are not reported via IMS). 
V „Priročniku za prijavljanje nepravilnosti pri deljenem upravljanju" se s sklicevanjem na sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije omejujejo primeri, v katerih se za telesa javnega sektorja ne šteje, da delujejo kot gospodarski subjekti (s čimer se omejujejo primeri, ki se ne prijavijo prek sistema za upravljanje nepravilnosti).
Second sub-bullet point: From a legal point of view, the obligation to report "suspected fraud" cases covers also cases for which no payment has been made. 
Druga podtočka: S pravnega vidika obveznost prijavljanja primerov „sumov goljufij“ vključuje tudi primere, v katerih ni bilo izvedeno plačilo.
However, it is true that non-fraudulent irregularities for which no payment has been made are covered by derogation to report. 
Res pa je, da so nepravilnosti, ki ne pomenijo goljufije in v zvezi s katerimi ni bilo izvedeno plačilo, zajete z odstopanjem od obveznosti prijavljanja.
From a technical point of view, IMS has no mandatory fields, besides those related to the fund and programming period. 
S tehničnega vidika sistem za upravljanje nepravilnosti nima drugih obveznih polj poleg tistih, ki se nanašajo na sklad in programsko obdobje.
The field "project name" can therefore be left empty and does not prevent reporting. 
Polje „ime projekta“ se torej lahko pusti prazno in ne preprečuje prijave.
Third bullet point: The Commission acknowledges that a certain amount of information may be lost due to the reporting threshold of EUR 10 000. 
Tretja točka: Komisija priznava, da se zaradi praga prijavljanja, ki je 10 000 EUR, določena količina informacij lahko izgubi.
However, it mainly relates to minor cases which, to a large extent, concern individual perpetrators operating simple fraudulent schemes. 
Vendar se to nanaša predvsem na manjše primere, ki večinoma zadevajo posamezne storilce, ki upravljajo preproste sheme goljufij.
added value of this information would be limited. 
Zato bi bila dodana vrednost teh informacij omejena.
The majority of these cases are also likely to be dismissed by national prosecution services. 
Poleg tega bi večino teh primerov državna tožilstva verjetno zavrnila.
However, Member States are obliged to follow up on detected irregularities, regardless of the reporting threshold. 
Kljub temu imajo države članice dolžnost ukrepati na podlagi odkritih nepravilnosti, ne glede na prag prijavljanja.
The Commission acknowledges that reporting practices can vary not only per country but also per reporting authority. 
Komisija priznava, da se lahko prakse prijavljanja razlikujejo ne le med državami, ampak tudi med organi prijavljanja.
The Commission continuously works on streamlining the reporting practice as much as possible by informing and advising Member States via meetings, trainings, manuals, guidance notes, handbooks and feedback on reported cases. 
Komisija si nenehno prizadeva za čim večjo racionalizacijo prakse prijavljanja, tako da države članice obvešča ter jim svetuje na podlagi sestankov, usposabljanj, navodil, smernic, priročnikov in povratnih informacij o prijavljenih primerih.
In addition, actions concerning the reliability of IMS data are taken (see reply to paragraph 30). 
Poleg tega se sprejemajo ukrepi v zvezi z zanesljivostjo podatkov sistema za upravljanje nepravilnosti (glej odgovor na odstavek30).
The handbook quoted by the ECA was issued in 2017. 
Priročnik, na katerega se sklicuje Evropsko računsko sodišče, je bil izdan leta 2017.
This cannot yet have had any impact on information analysed by the ECA and presented in Annex 4. 
Tako še ni mogel vplivati na informacije, ki jih je analiziralo Evropsko računsko sodišče in so predstavljene v Prilogi 4.
It should be considered that the issues raised by the ECA may have an impact on the detection rate of the specific reporting year, but that such impact decreases significantly in respect of multiannual analyses or analyses focussed on a whole programming period, like those published and updated every year in the Commission Staff Working Document "Statistical evaluation of irregularities". 
Upoštevati je treba, da lahko vprašanja, na katera opozori evropsko računsko sodišče, vplivajo na stopnjo odkrivanja za posamezno leto prijavljanja, vendar je tak vpliv bistveno manjši v zvezi z večletnimi analizami ali analizami, osredotočenimi na celotno programsko obdobje, kot so analize, objavljene in vsako leto posodobljene v delovnem dokumentu služb Komisije z naslovom „Statistična ocena nepravilnosti“.
The introduction of fraud detection rates has helped to have an objective indicator to measure the performance of Member States, rather than comparing absolute numbers, representing another step forward in a continuous process. 
Uvedba stopenj odkrivanja goljufij je namesto primerjave absolutnih številk pomagala zagotoviti objektiven kazalnik za merjenje uspešnosti držav članic, kar je še en korak naprej v stalnem procesu.
While detection rates are indicators of fraud to be considered, direct comparison of detection rates must be put into context. 
Čeprav so stopnje odkrivanja kazalniki goljufij, ki jih je treba upoštevati, je treba neposredno primerjavo stopenj odkrivanja postaviti v kontekst.
The overall anti-fraud framework in the different Member States is the background against which data on detections and related differences among Member States should be interpreted. 
Splošni okvir boja proti goljufijam v različnih državah članicah je kontekst, v katerem je treba razlagati podatke o odkritjih in s tem povezane razlike med državami članicami.
OLAF analyses such data and works with Member States to improve prevention, detection and reporting in the Member States. 
Urad OLAF take podatke analizira ter sodeluje z državami članicami, da bi se izboljšalo preprečevanje, odkrivanje in prijavljanje v državah članicah.
Analysing the underlying reasons for differences in reporting implies analysing the 28 national anti-fraud systems in detail. 
Analiziranje temeljnih razlogov za razlike pri prijavljanju vključuje podrobno analizo 28 nacionalnih sistemov boja proti goljufijam.
While it might be considered in the context of a broader and deeper analysis of the overall anti-fraud framework in the different Member States, the absence of a strong correlation between reported fraud detection rates and perception of corruption should not be over-emphasised. 
Čeprav bi se neobstoj tesne povezave med sporočenimi stopnjami odkrivanja goljufij in zaznavanjem korupcije lahko upošteval v okviru širše in podrobnejše analize splošnega okvira boja proti goljufijam v različnih državah članicah, se mu ne sme pripisati prevelikega pomena.
Corruption is one of the many modi operandi through which fraud against the EU budget is perpetrated. 
Korupcija je eden od številnih načinov delovanja pri storitvi goljufij, ki škodujejo proračunu EU.
2 In 2005, the reporting threshold was increased from EUR 4 000 to EUR 10 000. 
2 V letu 2005 je bil prag prijavljanja s 4 000 EUR zvišan na 10 000 EUR.
At the time, an estimation was made of the amount of information lost in the process: the increased threshold would have implied a reduction of about 45% of the reported number of irregularities, but a loss of only 5% of the related financial amounts. 
Takrat je bila ocenjena količina informacij, izgubljenih med postopkom: z zvišanjem praga naj bi se za približno 45 % zmanjšalo število prijavljenih nepravilnosti, vendar naj bi se izgubilo samo 5 % s tem povezanih zneskov.
Translated in terms on the fraud detection rate in 2017, this would imply a figure 0.22% instead of 0.21%. 7 
Če se to izrazi kot stopnja odkrivanja goljufij v letu 2017, bi ta številka namesto 0,21 % znašala 0,22 %. 7
In relation to the reliability of IMS data, the Commission itself does not have the capacity of auditing it on a general scale. 
Kar zadeva zanesljivost podatkov sistema za upravljanje nepravilnosti, Komisija sama nima zmogljivosti za njihovo splošno revizijo.
However, OLAF invests in streamlining the reporting practices of the Member States (see reply to paragraph 25) and in performing basic quality checks. 
Kljub temu si urad OLAF prizadeva za racionalizacijo praks prijavljanja držav članic (glej odgovor na odstavek 25) in za izvajanje osnovnih preverjanj kakovosti.
Checks relating to the irregularity reporting systems are performed in the framework of system audits. 
Preverjanja v zvezi s sistemi za prijavljanje nepravilnosti se izvajajo v okviru revizij sistema.
Member States have to put in place effective and proportionate anti-fraud measures as part of their management and control system, based on a risk assessment. 
Države članice morajo uvesti učinkovite in sorazmerne ukrepe za boj proti goljufijam v okviru svojega sistema upravljanja in nadzora, in sicer na podlagi ocene tveganja.
This is a specific regulatory anti-fraud requirement for 2014–2020 introduced in the Common Provisions Regulation (Article 125(4)(c) CPR). 
To je posebna regulativna zahteva za boj proti goljufijam za obdobje 2014–2020, uvedena z uredbo o skupnih določbah (člen 125(4)(c) uredbe o skupnih določbah).
In the guidance note related to this Article, the Commission indicates that the establishment of clear reporting mechanisms is a key element of prevention as well as detection. 
Komisija v smernici v zvezi s tem členom navaja, da je vzpostavitev jasnih mehanizmov prijavljanja ključni element preprečevanja in tudi odkrivanja.
It is confirmed that suspected fraud must be reported by the authority designated by the Member State in line with the requirements under Article 122(2) CPR. 
Potrjeno je, da mora sum goljufije uradu OLAF prijaviti organ, ki ga imenuje država članica, v skladu z zahtevami iz člena 122(2) uredbe o skupnih določbah.
As concerns regional policy, under Key Requirement 7, the Commission's auditors check whether under a certain Operational Programme Managing Authorities have complied with their general obligation to prevent, detect, report and correct irregularities, including fraudulent ones. 
Kar zadeva regionalno politiko, v okviru ključne zahteve 7 revizorji Komisije preverijo, ali so organi upravljanja v okviru določenega operativnega programa izpolnili svojo splošno obveznost preprečevanja, odkrivanja, prijavljanja in odpravljanja nepravilnosti, vključno z goljufijami.
Some audit findings by the Commission services have covered e.g. the absence of reporting through IMS with regard to irregularities detected. 
Nekatere revizijske ugotovitve služb Komisije so na primer zajele odsotnost prijavljanja v sistemu za upravljanje nepravilnosti v zvezi z odkritimi nepravilnostmi.
As concerns the Common Agricultural Policy, the Commission assesses the quality of the data in IMS in the context of its EAGGF Guidance audits. 
Kar zadeva skupno kmetijsko politiko, Komisija ocenjuje kakovost podatkov v sistemu za upravljanje nepravilnosti v okviru revizij Usmerjevalnega oddelka EKUJS.
Irregularities (including fraud cases) are reported in an annex to annual accounts. 
O nepravilnostih (vključno s primeri goljufij) se poroča v prilogi k letnim računovodskim izkazom.
In connection with audits, the Commission requests the audit authorities to carry out verifications on the implementation of the anti-fraud measures. 
Komisija v povezavi z revizijami od revizijskih organov zahteva, naj izvedejo preverjanja v zvezi z izvajanjem ukrepov za boj proti goljufijam.
The standard scope of the Commission's own early preventive audits (EPSAs) also includes the review of the anti-fraud measures. 
Zgodnje preventivne revizije Komisije standardno zajemajo tudi pregled ukrepov za boj proti goljufijam.
There are no perfect systems for the collection of data on criminal cases linked to the EU financial interests investigated by national authorities, and national systems are mostly incomplete and not accessible to the Commission. 
Popolnih sistemov za zbiranje podatkov o kazenskih zadevah, povezanih s finančnimi interesi EU, ki jih preiskujejo nacionalni organi, ni, nacionalni sistemi pa so največkrat nepopolni in Komisiji niso dostopni.
Even the Member States which collect criminal investigation statistics tend to have very generic data, which relate to violations of Criminal code articles rather than specifying the EU or national fund or the type of operation affected. 
Celo države članice, ki zbirajo statistične podatke o kazenskih preiskavah, imajo po navadi zelo splošne podatke o kršitvah členov kazenskega zakonika, namesto da bi bil podrobno opredeljen sklad EU ali nacionalni sklad ali vrsta postopka, ki ga te kršitve zadevajo.