natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Spreading of excellence activities included visits to industry, participation in international conferences, organisation of summer school sessions and other training events, the dissemination of project information through a dedicated web page, newsletters, press releases, and the publication of articles. Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
Širjenje dejavnosti na področju odličnosti je zajemalo obiske industrije, sodelovanje na mednarodnih konferencah, organizacijo usposabljanj v poletni šoli in drugih usposabljanj, razširjanje informacij o projektu prek temu namenjene spletne strani, brošur, sporočil za javnost in objavljanja člankov. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2009 – „Mreže odličnosti“ in „integrirani projekti“ v raziskovalni politiki Skupnosti: ali so dosegli svoje cilje?
Projects undertaken under NoEs and IPs attracted almost 50 % of FP6 funds. 
Projekti, ki so se izvajali v okviru mrež odličnosti in integriranih projektov, so pritegnili skoraj 50 % finančnih sredstev iz 6.
According to the Commission’s data under the Seventh Framework Programme (2007–13) NoEs and those collaborative projects that assume IP characteristics received 16 % of the total FP7 funding allocated up to February 2009.12 15. 
Po podatkih Komisije so mreže odličnosti in tisti skupni projekti, ki imajo značilnosti integriranih projektov, v 7. okvirnem programu (2007–2013) prejeli 16 % skupnega financiranja, ki je bilo iz 7.
FP6 financed 167 projects as NoEs, involving some 5 000 participants and a cumulative EU contribution of 1,2 billion euro (against eligible investment costs of 1,9 billion euro). 
OP se je financiralo 167 projektov v obliki mrež odličnosti, kar je zajemalo približno 5 000 udeležencev in skupni prispevek EU v višini 1,2 milijarde EUR (v primerjavi z upravičenimi stroški naložbe v višini 1,9 milijarde EUR).
On average, each NoE involved around 30 partners and an EU contribution of 7 million euro per contract. 
V vsaki mreži odličnosti je sodelovalo povprečno približno 30 partnerjev, prispevek EU pa je znašal 7 milijonov EUR na pogodbo.
Almost 700 projects were financed as ‘IPs’. 
Skoraj 700 projektov je bilo financiranih kot „integriranih projektov“.
They involved some 17 000 participants and a cumulative EU contribution of 6,5 billion euro (against eligible investment costs of 10,7 billion euro). 
V njih je sodelovalo približno 17 000 udeležencev, skupni prispevek EU pa je znašal 6,5 milijarde EUR (v primerjavi z upravičenimi stroški naložbe v višini 10,7 milijarde EUR).
On average, each IP involved around 25 partners and an EU contribution of 9,5 million euro per contract. 
Povprečno je v vsakem integriranem projektu sodelovalo približno 25 partnerjev, prispevek EU pa je znašal 9,5 milijona EUR na pogodbo.
Overall, FP6 available funds permitted the financing of only one out of five proposals received. 
OP, so na splošno omogočala financiranje samo enega od petih prejetih predlogov.
This ratio is similar to that of the US National Science Foundation funding schemes, but lower than that of the previous Framework Programme (26 %). 
To razmerje je podobno razmerju shem financiranja ameriške nacionalne znanstvene fundacije, (National Science Foundation), vendar je nižje od prejšnjega okvirnega programa (26 %).
12 Decision No 1982/2006/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, (2007 to 2013) (OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 
1982/2006/ES Evropskega parlamenta in sveta z dne 18.decembra 2006 o Sedmem okvirnem programu Evropske skupnosti na področju raziskav, tehnološkega razvoja in predstavitvenih dejavnosti (2007 do 2013) (UL L 412, 30.12.2006, str.
Under FP7, ‘Collaborative Projects’ may include the activities previously carried out by ‘Integrated Projects’. 
OP „skupni projekti“ lahko zajemajo dejavnosti, ki so se prej izvajale z „integriranimi projekti“.
13 BOX 2 WHAT SORT OF ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT IN IPs? 
13 OKVIR 2 KAKŠNE VRSTE DEJAVNOSTI SO SE IZVAJALE V OKVIRU INTEGRIRANIH PROJEKTOV?
The activities covered by a project carried under IPs fall within one of the following categories: • research and technological development activities directly aimed at creating new knowledge, including innovation-related and dissemination activities; • demonstration activities designed to prove the viability of new technologies that offer a potential economic advantage but which cannot be commercialised directly (e.g. testing of prototypes); • training activities intended to contribute to the professional development of researchers and other key staff, research managers, industrial executives (in particular for SMEs), and potential users of the knowledge generated by the project. Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
Dejavnosti, zajete v projekt, ki se izvaja v okviru integriranih projektov, sodijo v eno izmed naslednjih kategorij: • dejavnosti na področju raziskav in tehnološkega razvoja, ki so neposredno namenjene ustvarjanju novega znanja, vključno z dejavnostmi, povezanimi z inovacijami in razširjanjem; • predstavitvene dejavnosti, zasnovane, da dokažejo uporabnost novih tehnologij, ki sicer nudijo potencialno ekonomsko prednost, vendar jih ni mogoče neposredno tržiti (npr. testiranje prototipov); • dejavnosti usposabljanja, katerih namen je prispevati k poklicnemu razvoju raziskovalcev in drugega ključnega osebja, vodij raziskovanja, vodstvenih delavcev v industriji (zlasti MSP) in potencialnih uporabnikov znanja, ki je bilo ustvarjeno s projektom. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2009 – „Mreže odličnosti“ in „integrirani projekti“ v raziskovalni politiki Skupnosti: ali so dosegli svoje cilje?
AUDIT SCOPE The objectives of the audit were to assess to what extent: — Networks of Excellence and Integrated Projects contributed to achieve the research policy objectives set by the Treaty as well as their own specific objectives. — The Commission effectively supported the projects’ implementation, by providing the necessary guidance to beneficiaries, managing the contracts and monitoring the progress achieved; and — FP6 had stimulated RTD investment. 
OBSEG REVIZIJE IN REVIZIJSKI PRISTOP OBSEG REVIZIJE Cilji revizije so bili, da se oceni, v kolikšnem obsegu: – so mreže odličnosti in integrirani projekti prispevali k doseganju ciljev raziskovalne politike, določenih s Pogodbo, in doseganju lastnih posebnih ciljev; – je Komisija uspešno podpirala izvajanje projektov tako, da je zagotovila potrebna navodila upravičencem, upravljala pogodbe in spremljala doseženi napredek ter – je 6.
AUDIT APPROACH Audit evidence was collected through: — Review of documentation on FP6 (preparatory documents, legal framework and Commission guidance, implementation data). — Visits to 36 project coordinators and participants involved in 14 projects in 15 different Member States13. — A series of ‘round table’ discussions with 60 researchers from 44 different organisations participating in FP614. — A survey of 387 RTD organisations (274 programme participants, 104 proposers and nine non-participants). — An analysis of selected management areas playing a key role in the performance of the instruments (including the review of the implementation of eight calls for proposals and an analysis of the conclusions of 399 independent project reviews conducted before 31 December 2007). — The review of secondary evidence on the effectiveness of the instruments. — Consideration of the opinions expressed by some associations active in Community research. 
REVIZIJSKI PRISTOP Revizijski dokazi so bili zbrani: – s pregledom dokumentacije o 6. OP (pripravljalni dokumenti, zakonski okvir in navodila Komisije, podatki o izvajanju); – z obiski pri 36 koordinatorjih projektov in udeležencih, ki so sodelovali pri 14 projektih v 15 različnih državah članicah13; – z več „okroglimi mizami“ s 60 raziskovalci iz 44 različnih organizacij, ki so sodelovali v 6. OP14; – z anketo 387 organizacij RTR (274 udeležencev programa, 104 predlagatelji in devet neudeležencev); – z analizo izbranih upravljavskih področij, ki igrajo ključno vlogo pri uspešnosti instrumentov (vključno s pregledom izvajanja osmih razpisov za zbiranje predlogov in analizo sklepov 399 neodvisnih pregledov projektov, opravljenih pred 31. decembrom 2007); – s pregledom sekundarnih dokazov o uspešnosti instrumentov; – z upoštevanjem mnenj, ki so jih izrazila nekatera združenja, dejavna v raziskavah Skupnosti.
13 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
13 V Avstriji, Belgiji, na Danskem, v Estoniji, na Finskem, v Franciji, Nemčiji, Italiji, na Nizozemskem, Poljskem, Portugalskem, Slovaškem, v Španiji, na Švedskem in v Združenem kraljestvu.
14 Round tables were organised with the assistance of the FP6 National Contact Point coordinators in Finland, France, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom. 
14 Okrogle mize so bile organizirane s pomočjo koordinatorjev nacionalnih kontaktnih točk pri 6. OP na Finskem, v Franciji, na Poljskem, v Španiji in Združenem kraljestvu.
According to the EC Treaty, Community RTD policy has the overall aim to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and to encourage it to become more competitive at international level. 
V skladu s Pogodbo ES je skupni cilj politike RTR Skupnosti krepiti znanstvene in tehnološke temelje industrije Skupnosti ter jo spodbujati, da postane bolj konkurenčna na mednarodni ravni.
In the framework of a previous audit in the field of research, the Court pointed out the lack of an explicit intervention logic, explaining how the different instruments and programmes were supposed to contribute to Community RTD goals15. 
V okviru prejšnje revizije na področju raziskav je Sodišče izpostavilo pomanjkanje jasno izražene logike posega, ki bi pojasnjevala, kako naj bi različni instrumenti in programi prispevali k ožjim ciljem RTR Skupnosti15.
In addition, no SMART objectives16 and performance indicators were defined for the individual research programmes, thus undermining the basis for sound monitoring and evaluation17. 
Poleg tega za posamezne raziskovalne programe niso bili opredeljeni nobeni cilji SMART16 in kazalniki uspešnosti, kar je ogrozilo osnovo za dobro spremljanje in vrednotenje17.
Bearing in mind the lack of an explicit intervention logic18, the Court has examined the contribution of the new instruments to the Community RTD policy in general as regards the following aspects: — The effectiveness of the research collaboration put in place; and — The scientific quality of individual projects as assessed by the experts. 
Sodišče je ob upoštevanju pomanjkanja jasno izražene logike posega18 preučilo naslednje vidike prispevka novih instrumentov k splošni politiki RTR Skupnosti: 15 Posebno poročilo št.
15 Special Report No 9/2007 concerning ‘Evaluating the EU Research and Technological Development (RTD) framework programmes — Could the Commission’s approach be improved?’ (see paragraphs 22 to 37) (OJ C 26, 30.1.2008). 
9/2007 o „ocenjevanju okvirnih programov EU za raziskave in tehnološki razvoj (RTR) – je mogoče pristop Komisije izboljšati?“ (glej odstavke 22 do 37) (UL C 26, 30.1.2008).
Intervention logic is defined by the Commission as ‘the conceptual link from an intervention’s inputs to the production of its outputs and, subsequently, to its impacts on society in terms of results and outcomes’ (European Commission, ‘Evaluating EU activities: A practical guide for the Commission services’, July 2004, pp. 87 and 106). 
Komisija logiko posega opredeljuje kot „konceptualno povezavo med vložki posega in njegovimi izložki ter posledično z njegovimi učinki na družbo z vidika rezultatov in izidov“ (Evropska komisija, Evaluating EU activities: a practical guide for the Commission services, julij 2004, str. 87 in 106).
16 SMART stands for specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed. 
16 „SMART“ pomeni specifičen, merljiv, dosegljiv, ustrezen in časovno opredeljen.
The definition of SMART objectives constitutes a general principle of the EU Financial Regulation to ensure sound financial management (see Article 27(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 
Opredelitev ciljev SMART sestavlja splošno načelo Finančne uredbe EU o zagotovitvi dobrega finančnega poslovodenja (glej člen 27(3) Uredbe Sveta (ES, Euratom) št. 1605/2002 (UL L 248, 16.9.2002, str.
18 For example, the impact of the absence of an explicit intervention logic was already highlighted in 2004 by the panel in charge of the Five-year Assessment 1999–2003, which stated that ‘...panels like ours are asked to fill a gap between, on the one side, evidence mainly collected at project level and, on the other side, the higher level socio-economic goals of research policy. 
Na primer, učinek pomanjkanja jasno izražene logike posega je leta 2004 že poudaril odbor, zadolžen za petletno oceno obdobja 1999–2003.
However, at the moment the link is difficult to make due to the way the FP is planned. It lacks an explicit logic connecting the highest objectives to the specific research and knowledge goals’ ‘Five-year Assessment of the European Union Research Framework Programmes, 1993–2003’, Report of the Independent Expert Panel chaired by Erkki Ormala (15 December 2004): Section 6 ‘Evaluating the Framework Programme’, p. 
Primanjkuje mu jasno izražena logika posega, ki bi najvišje ožje cilje povezovala s posebnimi ožjimi cilji na področjih raziskav in znanja, „Petletne ocene okvirnih raziskovalnih programov Evropske unije, 1993–2003“, poročilo odbora neodvisnih strokovnjakov, ki mu je predsedoval Erkki Ormala (15. december 2004): oddelek 6 „Vrednotenje okvirnega programa“, str.
The effectiveness of research collaboration was assessed by reference to the actual achievement of project deliverables, the transfer of existing and new scientific knowledge as well as the use of good practices concerning the way in which research is carried out. 
Uspešnost raziskovalnega sodelovanja je bila ocenjena glede na dejansko doseganje projektnih rezultatov, prenos obstoječega in novega znanstvenega znanja ter uporabo dobrih praks pri načinu izvajanja raziskav.
The Court concludes that the FP6 instruments covered by the audit had promoted a good level of research collaboration between project participants. 
Sodišče je prišlo do zaključka, da so instrumenti 6.
Indeed: Has the collaboration between the participants been effective? NoEs 101 projects 1 % IPs 298 projects 1% 16 32 % 23 % Yes Partially No 67 % 76 % Source: European Court of Auditors — Horizontal analysis of project review reports as at 31 December 2007. 
OCENA, KI SO JO PREGLEDOVALCI PODALI O DOSEŽENEM RAZISKOVALNEM SODELOVANJU OCENA, KI SO JO PREGLEDOVALCI PODALI O USPEŠNOSTI SODELOVANJA 32 % 23 % Da Delno Ne 67 % 76 % Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče – Horizontalna analiza poročil o pregledih projektov z dne 31. decembra 2007.
Moreover, the survey of participants reveals an overall satisfaction with the two instruments audited (see Figure 4). 
Poleg tega anketa, izvedena med udeleženci, razkriva splošno zadovoljstvo z obema revidiranima instrumentoma (glej diagram 4).
NoEs were found to be particularly successful by public research centres and universities, while private partners (including SMEs) considered collaboration less fruitful. 
Po mnenju javnih raziskovalnih centrov in univerz so bile zlasti uspešne mreže odličnosti, medtem ko so zasebni partnerji (vključno z MSP) menili, da je bilo sodelovanje manj plodno.
Concerning IPs, the cooperation was considered effective by both public and private partners. 
Tako javni kot zasebni partnerji so v zvezi z integriranimi projekti menili, da je bilo sodelovanje uspešno.
17 FIGURE 4 How satisfactory do you consider project in terms of ... 
17 DIAGRAM 4 Kako zadovoljiv je po vašem mnenju projekt z vidika ...
Coordinators Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Participants Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory PARTICIPANTS’ PERCEPTION OF THE PROJECT’S EFFECTIVENESS NoE IP ... the promotion of high-quality research collaboration between project participants ... the networking of participants ... coordinating the strategic planning of the participants’ research activities ... transfer of knowledge between participants ... the promotion of the mobility of research staff between participants ... the promotion of high-quality research collaboration between project participants ... the networking of participants ... coordinating the strategic planning of the participants’ research activities ... transfer of knowledge between participants ... the promotion of the mobility of research staff between participants 100 % 100 % 86 % 100 % 89 % 92 % 94 % 83 % 97 % 89 % 0 % 0 % 14 % 0 % 11 % 8% 6% 17 % 3% 11 % 98 % 97 % 89 % 97 % 80 % 92 % 98 % 80 % 88 % 64 % 2% 3% 11 % 3% 20 % 8% 2% 20 % 12 % 36 % Source: Survey conducted by the European Court of Auditors. 
Koordinatorji Zadovoljivo Nezadovoljivo Zadovoljivo Nezadovoljivo Udeleženci Zadovoljivo Nezadovoljivo Zadovoljivo Nezadovoljivo ZAZNAVANJE USPEŠNOSTI PROJEKTA S STRANI UDELEŽENCEV Mreže odličnosti Integrirani projekti ... spodbujanja visokokakovostnega raziskovalnega sodelovanja med udeleženci projekta ... povezovanja udeležencev v mrežo ... usklajevanja strateškega načrtovanja raziskovalnih dejavnosti udeležencev ... prenosa znanja med udeleženci ... spodbujanja mobilnosti raziskovalnega osebja med udeleženci ... spodbujanja visokokakovostnega raziskovalnega sodelovanja med udeleženci projekta ... povezovanja udeležencev v mrežo ... usklajevanja strateškega načrtovanja raziskovalnih dejavnosti udeležencev ... prenosa znanja med udeleženci ... spodbujanja mobilnosti raziskovalnega osebja med udeleženci Vir: Anketa, ki jo je izvedlo Evropsko računsko sodišče. 100 % 100 % 86 % 100 % 89 % 92 % 94 % 83 % 97 % 89 % 0 % 0 % 14 % 0 % 11 % 8% 6% 17 % 3% 11 % 98 % 97 % 89 % 97 % 80 % 92 % 98 % 80 % 88 % 64 % 2% 3% 11 % 3% 20 % 8% 2% 20 % 12 % 36 % Posebno poročilo št.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? PROJECT PLANS BETTER THAN IMPLEMENTED PROJECTS IN A NUMBER OF CASES 25. 
8/2009 – „Mreže odličnosti“ in „integrirani projekti“ v raziskovalni politiki Skupnosti: ali so dosegli svoje cilje? V VEČ PRIMERIH PROJEKTNI NAČRTI BOLJŠI OD IZVEDENIH PROJEKTOV 25.
Project quality is associated with the concept of scientific and technological excellence and the degree of innovation. 
Kakovost projekta je povezana s pojmom znanstvene in tehnološke odličnosti ter stopnjo inovacij.
It is a normal practice for research projects that their quality be assessed by peers. 
Pri raziskovalnih projektih je običajna praksa, da njihovo kakovost ocenijo kolegi.
For FP6, independent experts were involved in the initial selection of proposals as well as in the monitoring and evaluation of projects implemented19. 
Pri 6. OP so pri začetnem izboru predlogov ter spremljanju in vrednotenju izvedenih projektov19 sodelovali neodvisni strokovnjaki.
Project reviewers’ ex post assessment is based on: — the progress towards the achievement of its objectives; — the adequate use of resources; — the degree to which research collaboration has been effective; — the soundness of project management, and — the use and dissemination of knowledge arising from the project. 
Naknadna ocena pregledovalcev projekta temelji na: – napredku pri doseganju ciljev; – ustrezni uporabi virov; – stopnji, glede na katero je bilo sodelovanje uspešno; – dobrem upravljanju projekta ter – uporabi in razširjanju znanja, ki nastane pri projektu.
19 ‘Evaluators’ participate in the evaluation process, assessing the merits of each of the proposals received against the criteria defined by the Commission in the corresponding call for proposals. 
19 „Ocenjevalci“ sodelujejo v procesu vrednotenja in ocenijo prednosti vsakega prejetega predloga glede na merila, ki jih Komisija opredeli v pripadajočem razpisu za zbiranje predlogov.
Based on the evaluators’ assessment, the Commission decides which proposals deserve to be funded. 
Komisija se na podlagi ocen, ki jih podajo ocenjevalci, odloči, kateri predlogi si zaslužijo financiranje. „Pregledovalci“ začnejo sodelovati šele precej po dejanskem začetku projekta.
They periodically assess progress achieved by a given project during a reference period, on the basis of an assessment form prepared by the Commission. 
Na podlagi ocenjevalnega obrazca, ki ga pripravi Komisija, periodično ocenjujejo napredek, ki ga je določeni projekt dosegel v referenčnem obdobju.
Based on this assessment, the Commission decides whether the project may continue or if, on the contrary, it should be terminated before the planned completion date. ‘Evaluators’ and ‘Reviewers’ are selected from the same database constituted by the Commission at the start of the programme. 
Komisija se na podlagi te ocene odloči, ali se projekt lahko nadaljuje, ali pa bi ga bilo nasprotno treba zaključiti pred načrtovanim datumom zaključka. „Ocenjevalci“ in „pregledovalci“ so izbrani iz iste podatkovne zbirke, ki jo na začetku programa vzpostavi Komisija.
18 FIGURE 5 % REVIEWERS’ ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT QUALITY 19 % 0% 42 39 % Good to excellent project Acceptable project Unsatisfactory project No reply 18 % 2% 44 % 36 % NoEs 101 projects IPs 298 projects OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT’S QUALITY Source: European Court of Auditors — Horizontal analysis of project review reports as at 31 December 2007. Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
18 DIAGRAM 5 OCENA, KI SO JO PREGLEDOVALCI PODALI O KAKOVOSTI PROJEKTOV 19 % 0% 42 % 39 % Dober do odličen projekt Sprejemljiv projekt Nezadovoljiv projekt Ni odgovora 18 % 2% 44 % 36 % Mreže odličnosti 101 projekt Integrirani projekti 298 projektov SKUPNA OCENA KAKOVOSTI PROJEKTOV Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče – Horizontalna analiza poročil o pregledih projektov z dne 31. decembra 2007. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2009 – „Mreže odličnosti“ in „integrirani projekti“ v raziskovalni politiki Skupnosti: ali so dosegli svoje cilje?
The Court’s analysis of the experts’ review reports shows that more than one third of projects were qualified as ‘good to excellent’ (see Figure 5). 
Analiza, ki jo je Sodišče opravilo v zvezi s poročili o pregledih, ki so jih izvedli strokovnjaki, kaže, da je bila več kot tretjina projektov uvrščenih med „dobre do odlične“ (glej diagram 5).
Only six out of 399 projects implemented as NoEs and IPs were considered unsatisfactory. 
Samo šest od 399 projektov, ki so se izvajali kot mreže odličnosti in integrirani projekti, se je štelo za nezadovoljive.
However, a large number of projects (174 projects, or 44 % of all projects reviewed) were assessed as not more than ‘acceptable’. 
Vendar veliko število projektov (174 projektov ali 44 % vseh pregledanih projektov) ni bilo ocenjeno bolje kot „sprejemljivo“.
Considering that experts had qualified all projects as ‘excellent’ at the time of their selection by the Commission, the review results indicate that project quality is declining in the implementation phase. 
Glede na to, da so strokovnjaki v času, ko je Komisija izbrala projekte, vse ocenili kot „odlične“, rezultati pregleda kažejo, da kakovost projektov upada v fazi izvajanja.
ACHIEVEMENT OF THE NEW INSTRUMENTS’ SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 28. 
DOSEGANJE POSEBNIH CILJEV NOVIH INSTRUMENTOV 28.
As previously indicated (see paragraphs 9 and 10), NoEs were aimed primarily at creating a substantial and lasting integration of the research activities of the network partners. 
Kot je bilo že navedeno (glej odstavka 9 in 10), je bil cilj mrež odličnosti predvsem ustvariti močno in trajno povezovanje raziskovalnih dejavnosti partnerjev v mreži.