natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Building files are unnecessarily detailed when delegations have no intention of moving 38 Stability is an objective of the building policy, so there is good reason for preferring to continue with the lease for an existing building if it meets the delegation’s needs and provides value for money. 
Dokumentacija o stavbah je po nepotrebnem preveč podrobna, kadar se delegacija ne namerava seliti 38 Stabilnost je cilj stavbne politike, torej je smiselno, da se za obstoječo stavbo, ki zadostuje potrebam delegacije in je stroškovno učinkovita, raje podaljša najemna pogodba.
This also avoids the cost and disruption of moving23. 
S tem se tudi izognemo stroškom in motnjam, ki jih prinese selitev23.
In any case, the standard lease agreement has a clause enabling the delegation to terminate the contract with 3 months’ notice at any time. 
V vsakem primeru vključuje standardna najemna pogodba klavzulo, na podlagi katere lahko delegacija kadarkoli prekine pogodbo s trimesečnim odpovednim rokom.
39 However, there is currently no difference between the guidance for preparing building files which aim to continue an existing lease and the guidance for preparing building files which aim to select — when a move is needed — the best building among a number of options. 
39 Vendar pa trenutno ni nobene razlike med smernicami za pripravo dokumentacije o stavbah, katerih namen je podaljšanje obstoječe najemne pogodbe, in smernicami za pripravo dokumentacije o stavbah, katerih namen je izbrati – kadar je selitev potrebna – najboljšo stavbo med številnimi možnostmi.
In the first case, a comparison with alternative options is artificial and less meaningful than demonstrating that the building still meets the delegation’s needs in accordance with the building policy and in line with market rates (see Box 3). 
V prvem primeru je primerjava z drugimi možnostmi umetna in več smisla bi imel prikaz, da stavba še vedno zadostuje potrebam delegacije v skladu s stavbno politiko in tržnimi cenami (glej okvir 3).
In the second case, delegations may require more support from headquarters to carry out a more comprehensive assessment, including a comparison of suitable and realistic shortlisted options. 
V drugem primeru lahko delegacije zaprosijo za dodatno podporo s sedeža za izvedbo bolj izčrpne ocene, vključno s primerjavo ustreznih in realističnih možnosti z ožjega seznama.
23 For German embassies, for example, there is an assumption that embassies will remain where they are, unless there is a particularly compelling reason to move. 
23 Za nemška veleposlaništva na primer se predvideva, da bodo ostala, kjer so, razen če obstaja posebno tehten razlog za selitev.
When delegations intend to stay put, examining alternatives can be artificial and of limited value The objective of the 2013 building file for Rwanda offices (see Annex II) was to justify continuing the existing rental agreement. 
Kadar nameravajo delegacije ostati tam, kjer so, je lahko preučevanje drugih možnosti umetno in nima velike vrednosti Cilj dokumentacije o stavbah iz leta 2013 za pisarne v Ruandi (glej Prilogo II) je bil utemeljiti podaljšanje obstoječe najemne pogodbe.
This was clear from a mission report from headquarters annexed to the building file instructing the delegation to negotiate an extension to the lease agreement for the office buildings quickly after exploring the market as required for the purposes of a report to the Building Committee. 
To je razvidno iz poročila o misiji, ki ga je pripravil sedež in je bilo priloženo dokumentaciji o stavbah. V njem je bilo delegaciji naročeno, naj se kmalu po proučitvi trga, potrebni za poročilo odboru za stavbe, pogaja o podaljšanju najemne pogodbe za pisarniške stavbe.
Therefore, although the building file included an analysis of a shortlist of suitable, realistic options, this had limited value because there was no intention of moving. Box 3 
Čeprav je dokumentacija o stavbah zajemala analizo ožjega seznama ustreznih, realističnih možnosti, ta ni imela velike vrednosti, saj se delegacija ni nameravala preseliti. Okvir 3
Observations 32 Building files rarely discuss the possibility of buying and do not compare it with the cost of renting 40 Of the 30 building files examined, only five discussed the possibility of buying (see Figure 12), and in all cases buying was rejected. 
Opažanja 32 Dokumentacija o stavbah redko vključuje razpravo o možnosti nakupa in tega ne primerja s stroški najema 40 Od 30 preučenih primerov dokumentacije o stavbah jih je samo pet vključevalo razpravo o možnosti nakupa (glej sliko 12) in v vseh primerih je bil nakup zavrnjen.
None of the building files examined presented a comparison of renting with buying that included a comparison of the estimated future costs. 
V nobenem od preučenih primerov dokumentacije o stavbah ni bila predstavljena primerjava med najemom in nakupom, ki bi vključevala primerjavo predvidenih prihodnjih stroškov.
In March 2015, headquarters informed heads of delegation that, in future, the Headquarters Infrastructure Division will carry out the calculations to compare buying with renting24. 
Marca 2015 je sedež obvestil vodje delegacij, da bo oddelek za infrastrukturo pri sedežu v prihodnje opravljal izračun za primerjavo med nakupom in najemom 24.
However, the method used is not disclosed in the EEAS building policy. 
Vendar pa uporabljena metoda v stavbni politiki ESZD ni razkrita.
The previous building policy explained how to calculate the financial return on an investment as a basis for comparing purchasing with renting over a suggested period of 20 years25. 
V prejšnji stavbni politiki je bilo pojasnjeno, kako izračunati finančni donos naložbe kot osnovo za primerjavo med nakupom in najemom v predlaganem obdobju 20 let25.
In practice, rent-or-buy discussions do not demonstrate that the proposed solution represents better value for money (see Box 4). 
V praksi razprave o tem, ali je bolje stavbo najeti ali kupiti, ne dokazujejo, da je predlagana rešitev stroškovno učinkovitejša (glej okvir 4).
24 Note from managing director administration and finance to heads of delegation of 30 March 2015. 
24 Obvestilo izvršnega direktorja za upravo in finance vodjem delegacij z dne 30. marca 2015.
25 The residual value of purchased property is an important factor in this calculation and one which is difficult to estimate accurately. 
25 Preostala vrednost kupljenih nepremičnin je pri tem izračunu pomemben dejavnik, ki ga je težko točno oceniti.
For example, the value of the residence in Washington DC purchased in 1971 for the equivalent of 2.4 million euro has trebled whilst the value of the office building in Argentina, purchased in 1992 for the equivalent of 1.5 million euro is estimated at 1.6 million euro. 
Na primer, vrednost rezidence v Washingtonu, ki je bila kupljena leta 1971 za 2,4 milijona EUR, se je potrojila, vrednost pisarniške stavbe v Argentini, kupljene leta 1992 za 1,5 milijona EUR, pa je ocenjena na 1,6 milijona EUR.
Delegations do not show that purchasing is better value for money than renting In 2010-2011, when the delegation in Nepal was proposing to purchase a plot of land from the French embassy and to construct offices and a residence, it was not required by headquarters to demonstrate that purchasing and construction represented better value for money than renting. 
Delegacije ne dokažejo, da je nakup stroškovno učinkovitejši od najema V obdobju 2010–2011, ko je delegacija v Nepalu predlagala odkup zemljišča od francoskega veleposlaništva ter izgradnjo pisarn in rezidence, sedež od nje ni zahteval, da dokaže, da sta nakup in gradnja stroškovno učinkovitejša od najema.
The same occurred in Washington DC, when the delegation had the opportunity to purchase the office building in 2010. 
Podobno se je zgodilo v Washingtonu, ko je delegacija leta 2010 imela možnost nakupa pisarniške stavbe.
Purchasing was excluded without exploring financing options and tax advantages, even though ownership of the building could have improved the delegation’s presence and the additional space could have been used for co-location with another embassy. 
Nakup je bil izključen, ne da bi se preučile možnosti financiranja in davčne ugodnosti, čeprav bi se lahko z lastništvom stavbe izboljšala prisotnost delegacije, dodatni prostor pa bi se lahko uporabil za kolokacijo z drugim veleposlaništvom.
In some building files, delegations do not present options in a comparable way 41 A good practice found in some building files was the comparison of shortlisted options against the selection criteria in the form of a table. 
V nekaterih primerih dokumentacije o stavbah delegacije ne predstavijo možnosti na način, ki bi omogočal primerjavo 41 Pri nekaterih primerih dokumentacije o stavbah so bili ugotovljeni primeri dobre prakse, saj je dokumentacija vsebovala tabele s primerjavo možnosti z ožjega seznama na podlagi izbirnih meril.
By way of illustration, Figure 15 is a composite table based on those found in the building files for the Rwanda, Guatemala and Laos offices. 
Za ponazoritev: na sliki 15 je sestavljena tabela, ki temelji na tabelah iz dokumentacije o stavbah za pisarne v Ruandi, Gvatemali in Laosu.
The allocation of points and the comments are for illustrative purposes only. 
Dodelitev točk in pripombe so zgolj za ponazoritev.
A table such as this makes it easy to compare the different options in order to arrive at a balanced overall assessment. 
Takšna tabela omogoča lažjo primerjavo različnih možnosti, da se lahko sprejme uravnotežena splošna ocena.
The table could also be extended, for example, to include the one-off costs associated with moving buildings (e.g. fitting-out and security works), running costs or revenue from co-location. 
Tabela se lahko tudi razširi, na primer z vključitvijo enkratnih stroškov, povezanih s selitvijo v druge stavbe (npr. za opremljanje in varnostna dela), tekočih stroškov ali prihodkov od kolokacije.
Observations 33 Illustrative good practice example of a table comparing options Building Quality criteria Price criteria Size criteria Safety and security (max 50) Functionality (max 30) Location and image (max 20) Total quality points (max 100) Total annual rental euro Price per m2 euro m2 total m2 per person (for offices) Option 1 Some concerns Modern building Good image 60 25 000 16.67 1 500 38 20 24 16 Option 2 Excellent New building In diplomatic area 84 22 000 15.71 1 400 35 38 28 18 Can be adapted Some concerns Outside diplomatic Option 3 25 14 area 49 20 000 12.5 1 600 40 10 Source: European Court of Auditors based on building files for offices in Rwanda, Guatemala and Laos. 
Opažanja 33 Tabela s primerjavo možnosti kot primer dobre prakse za ponazoritev Stavba Merila za kakovost Merila za ceno Merila za velikost Zaščita in varnost (največ 50) Funkcionalnost (največ 30) Lokacija in podoba (največ 20) Skupaj točk za kakovost (največ 100) Skupna letna najemnina (EUR) Cena na m2 (EUR) m2 skupaj m2 na osebo (za pisarne) Možnost 1 nekaj zadržkov sodobna stavba dobra podoba 60 25 000 16,67 1 500 38 20 24 16 odlično nova stavba v diplomatskem Možnost 2 38 28 območju 84 22 000 15,71 1 400 35 18 lahko se Možnost 3 prilagodi 25 nekaj zadržkov 14 zunaj diplomatskega območja 49 20 000 12,5 1 600 40 10 Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi dokumentacije o stavbah za pisarne v Ruandi, Gvatemali in Laosu.
42 This approach contrasted with other building files which examined the options in a less readily comparable way, for example, by randomly presenting particular advantages and disadvantages. 
42 Ta pristop se je razlikoval od drugih primerov dokumentacije o stavbah, v katerih so bile možnosti preučene na način, ki ni omogočal takšne takojšnje primerjave, na primer z naključno predstavitvijo posebnih prednosti in slabosti.
Delegations sometimes omit key information from building files such as cost per m2, or space per person for office buildings, or non-compliance with the space ceiling. 
Delegacije včasih v dokumentaciji o stavbah izpustijo ključne informacije, kot so stroški na m2, površina na osebo za pisarniške stavbe ali neskladnost z zgornjo mejo za površino.
In 8 of the 30 building files examined, the solution proposed to the Building Committee was not based on a sound analysis by the delegation (see Figure 12). 
Pri osmih od 30 preučenih primerov dokumentacije o stavbah rešitev, predlagana odboru za stavbe, ni temeljila na zanesljivi analizi, ki bi jo opravila delegacija (glej sliko 12).
Moreover, although building files often show the cost of the proposed solution after negotiations, they compare this with the cost of alternative buildings before negotiations. 
Poleg tega dokumentacija o stavbah sicer pogosto prikazuje stroške predlagane rešitve po pogajanjih, vendar te primerja s stroški alternativnih stavb pred pogajanji.
Observations 34 Guidance on preparing building files does not take into account space rented to other organisations and income generated by co-location 43 The 2014 report on co-location26 explains that the EEAS does not have the necessary manpower to develop common standards and produce reference documents for co-location. 
Opažanja 34 Smernice za pripravo primerov dokumentacije o stavbah ne upoštevajo prostorov, ki se oddajajo v najem drugim organizacijam, in dohodkov, ustvarjenih s kolokacijo 43 Poročilo o kolokaciji iz leta 201426 pojasnjuje, da ESZD nima dovolj osebja za pripravo skupnih standardov in referenčnih dokumentov za kolokacijo.
Consequently, guidance on preparing building files (see paragraph 31) does not explain how office space rented to Member States’ embassies and other EU institutions and bodies should be taken into account in the calculation of space per person. 
Zato smernice za pripravo dokumentacije o stavbah (glej odstavek 31) ne pojasnjujejo, kako bi bilo treba pri izračunu površine na osebo upoštevati pisarniške prostore, oddane v najem veleposlaništvom držav članic in drugim institucijam in organom EU.
Guidance also omits to explain how the associated income should be taken into account in calculating the cost per m2. 
V smernicah tudi ni pojasnjeno, kako naj se pri izračunu stroškov na m2 upošteva prihodek od kolokacije.
Some Headquarters Building Committee opinions are not timely or convincing 44 In the final stage of the building-file procedure, the Headquarters Building Committee examines the delegation’s proposal and issues its opinion. The Building Committee’s approval is necessary before a contract can be signed27. 
Nekatera mnenja odbora za stavbe pri sedežu niso pravočasna ali prepričljiva 44 V končni fazi postopka na podlagi dokumentacije o stavbah odbor za stavbe pri sedežu preuči predlog delegacije in da svoje mnenje.
However: (a) lengthy procedures prevent the signature of some contracts; (b) some decisions do not convincingly demonstrate that the selected solution is in line with market rates; (c) some decisions do not sufficiently take floor space into consideration. 
Vendar pa: (a) dolgotrajni postopki preprečujejo podpis nekaterih pogodb; (b) nekatere odločitve ne dokazujejo prepričljivo, da je izbrana rešitev skladna s tržnimi cenami; (c) nekatere odločitve ne upoštevajo dovolj tlorisne površine.
Lengthy procedures prevent the signing of some contracts 45 The Building Committee adopts opinions on the building files it examines. 
Dolgotrajni postopki preprečujejo podpis nekaterih pogodb 45 Odbor za stavbe sprejema mnenja o dokumentaciji o stavbah, ki jo preučuje.
Some comments in building files explain that, rather than wait for lengthy EEAS procedures, landlords would rent out buildings to other tenants. 
V nekaterih pripombah v dokumentaciji o stavbah je pojasnjeno, da lastniki stavb te raje oddajo drugim najemnikom, kot da bi čakali na dolgotrajne postopke ESZD.
This point of view was echoed by comments in the audit survey. 
To stališče je bilo izraženo tudi v pripombah revizijske ankete.
One respondent wrote: ‘The time from having identified a building until the approval from headquarters is far too long and landlords rent to other organisations in the meantime.’ 
Eden od anketirancev je dejal, da od določitve stavbe do odobritve s sedeža preteče preveč časa, zato lastniki stavb te medtem oddajo drugim organizacijam.
As a consequence, the approval of a building file does not necessarily lead to the signing of a contract. 
Posledično odobritev dokumentacije o stavbah nujno ne pripelje do podpisa pogodbe.
For example, although the building files for the residences in Israel and Sri Lanka were approved, contracts were not subsequently signed (see Annex II). 
Tako je bila na primer dokumentacija o stavbah za rezidenci v Izraelu in na Šrilanki sicer odobrena, vendar pogodbi nato nista bili podpisani (glej Prilogo II).
26 Report on co-location, 2014, 11 July 2014, EEAS. 
26 Report on Co-location, 2014 (poročilo o kolokaciji, 2014), 11. julija 2014, ESZD.
27 For any building project likely to have significant implications for the budget of the EU (for example, acquisition of land and acquisition of buildings exceeding 3 million euro or any new building related contract with an annual charge over 750 000 euro) the approval of the budgetary authority (the European Parliament and the Council) is also required (financial regulation, Article 203(7)). 
27 Za vse stavbne projekte, za katere je verjetno, da bodo bistveno vplivali na proračun EU (na primer, pridobitev zemljišč in stavb v vrednosti več kot 3 milijone EUR ali nova pogodba v zvezi s stavbo z letnimi stroški nad 750 000 EUR), je potrebna tudi odobritev proračunskega organa (Svet in Evropski parlament) (člen 203(7) finančne uredbe).
A building acquisition project financed through a loan is also subject to prior approval by the budgetary authority (financial regulation, Article 203(8)). 
Tudi za projekte pridobitve stavb, ki se financirajo s posojilom, je potrebna predhodna odobritev proračunskega organa (člen 203(8) finančne uredbe).
Observations 35 Some decisions do not convincingly demonstrate that the selected solution is in line with market rates 46 Of the 30 building files examined, seven did not contain a convincing reason for the Building Committee’s decision (see Figure 12). 
Opažanja 35 Pri nekaterih odločitvah ni prepričljivo dokazano, da je izbrana rešitev skladna s tržnimi cenami 46 Od 30 preučenih primerov dokumentacije o stavbah jih sedem ni vsebovalo prepričljive utemeljitve odločitve odbora za stavbe (glej sliko 12).
In four of these cases, this was because they did not demonstrate that the selected solution was in line with market rates. 
V štirih od teh primerov je bilo to zato, ker dokumentacija ni dokazovala, da je izbrana rešitev v skladu s tržnimi cenami.
The Building Committee did not compare the cost per m2 of the solution proposed by the delegation with an independent source of market rates in any of the 30 building files examined during the audit. 
Odbor za stavbe v nobenem od 30 primerov dokumentacije o stavbah, ki so bili preučeni med revizijo, za rešitev, ki jo je predlagala delegacija, ni primerjal stroškov na m2 s tržnimi cenami iz neodvisnih virov.
This meant that in those cases where the delegation had not demonstrated that its proposed solution was in line with market rates, the Building Committee did not address this weakness. 
To pomeni, da v primerih, kadar delegacija ni dokazala, da je rešitev, ki jo predlaga, v skladu s tržnimi cenami, odbor za stavbe te slabosti ni obravnaval.
This was the case for the offices in Togo, the residences in Mauritania and Sri Lanka and accommodation in Kenya (see Annex II). 
Tako je bilo pri pisarnah v Togu, pri rezidencah v Mavretaniji in na Šrilanki ter pri stanovanjih zaposlenih v Keniji (glej Prilogo II).
Some decisions do not sufficiently take floor space into consideration 47 In three of the seven building files which did not contain a convincing reason for the Building Committee’s decision, this was because they did not give sufficient consideration to the amount of office space per person and the recommended ceilings in the building policy (see Annex II). (a) In 2013, the Building Committee approved the proposed solution in the building file of the Jordan delegation for renting offices of 43 m2 per person (23 % higher than the recommended ceiling). 
Pri nekaterih odločitvah ni zadostno upoštevana tlorisna površina 47 Pri treh od sedmih primerov dokumentacije o stavbah, ki niso vsebovali prepričljivega razloga za odločitev odbora za stavbe, je bilo to zato, ker niso dovolj upoštevali površine na osebo v pisarnah in priporočenih zgornjih mej iz stavbne politike (glej Prilogo II): (a) leta 2013 je odbor za stavbe odobril predlagano rešitev iz dokumentacije o stavbah jordanske delegacije za najem pisarn v velikosti 43 m2 na osebo (23 % več od priporočene zgornje meje).
An alternative solution was rejected because it was considered too small, even though it was 35 m2 per person, exactly in line with the ceiling, and was over 20 % cheaper (a difference of 110 000 euro per annum) than the proposed solution. (b) In 2014, the Building Committee approved the proposed solution in the building file of the Washington DC delegation for expanding office space. 
Alternativna rešitev je bila zavrnjena, ker se je štela kot premajhna, čeprav je zajemala 35 m2 na osebo, kar je točno na zgornji meji, in je bila več kot 20 % cenejša (razlika bi znašala 110 000 EUR letno) od predlagane rešitve. (b) leta 2014 je odbor za stavbe odobril predlagano rešitev za razširitev pisarniških prostorov, ki jih je washingtonska delegacija navedla v dokumentaciji o stavbah.
Headquarters calculated the space per person as 40 m2 (14 % higher than the ceiling). 
Sedež je izračunal površino na osebo, ki je tako znašala 40 m2 (14 % več od zgornje meje).
However, it arrived at this figure by adding 20 staff, for which there was no clear basis. 
Vendar je do tega izračuna prišel tako, da je prištel 20 zaposlenih, za kar ni bilo jasne podlage.
This increase had not occurred at the time of the audit visit in May 2015. 
Do tega povečanja med revizijskim obiskom maja 2015 ni prišlo.
It also excluded the ground-floor press room from the calculation, although there was no reason for this in the building policy28. 
Prav tako je iz izračuna izključil tiskovno središče v pritličju, čeprav na podlagi stavbne politike za to ni bilo razloga28.
The space per person was in fact 56 m2, i.e. 60 % higher than the ceiling. 
Površina na osebo je dejansko znašala 56 m2, kar je za 60 % več od zgornje meje.
The Washington DC delegation considered that the building policy does not give sufficient recognition to the increased coordination role of the EEAS in certain countries, such as the United States. 
Delegacija v Washingtonu je menila, da stavbna politika ne priznava dovolj povečane vloge koordinatorke, ki jo ima ESZD v nekaterih držav, kot so ZDA.
However, neither the delegation nor the Building Committee mentioned that an exemption from the ceiling was necessary. 
Vendar niti delegacija niti odbor za stavbe nista navedla, da je potrebno odstopanje od zgornje meje; 28 Iz izračuna je izključil tudi dodatno konferenčno sobo, kar pa stavbna politika omogoča (glej odstavek 20).
Observations 36 (c) The selection criteria in the 2014 building file for a new residence in Sri Lanka specified a building with a minimum size of 600 m2. 
Opažanja 36 (c) izbirna merila za novo rezidenco na Šrilanki so v dokumentaciji o stavbah iz leta 2014 določala stavbo velikosti vsaj 600 m2.
This was inconsistent with the building policy in which 600 m2 is the maximum, not the minimum, size. 
To ni v skladu s stavbno politiko, ki določa, da velikost znaša največ in ne najmanj 600 m2.
The solution proposed by the delegation, and approved by the Building Committee, was a building of 930 m2. 
Rešitev, ki jo je predlagala delegacija in sprejel odbor za stavbe, je bila stavba z 930 m2.
Headquarters did not mention that this exceeded the ceiling of 600 m2 by 55 % and that an exemption was necessary. 
Sedež ni navedel, da je bila s tem za 55 % presežena zgornja meja, ki znaša 600 m2, in da je potrebno odstopanje.