natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
23 To request a grant from a regional investment facility, financial institu‐ tions need to submit a grant applica‐ tion form16. 
23 Za pridobitev nepovratnih sredstev iz regionalnih naložbenih instrumentov morajo finančne institucije predložiti obrazec vloge za nepovratna sred‐ stva16.
Although they became longer and more detailed over time, the information provided by the financial institutions before grant ap‐ proval was too general for appropriate decision‐making by the executive bod‐ ies of the regional investment facilities. 
Informacije, ki so jih finančne institucije zagotavljale izvršilnim organom regionalnih instrumentov za spodbujanje naložb pred odobritvijo vlog za dodelitev nepovratnih sred‐ stev, so bile preveč splošne za ustrezno odločanje, čeprav so sčasoma postale obsežnejše in podrobnejše.
Quantified data were lacking on loan conditions, concessionality (see Box 1) and viability (see Box 2 for an exam‐ ple). 
Opaziti je bilo pomanjkanje količinsko oprede‐ ljenih podatkov o posojilnih pogojih, koncesivnosti (glej okvir 1) in ekonom‐ ski smiselnosti (glej primer v okviru 2).
Furthermore, the expected added value of providing a grant was not well formulated, structured or quantified. 
Poleg tega pričakovana dodana vred‐ nost dodeljenih nepovratnih sredstev ni bila dobro oblikovana, strukturirana in količinsko opredeljena.
16 The ‘Standard Project Submission Form’ in the case of the geographical investment facilities managed by EuropeAid, the ‘Project Grant Application Form’ for the WBIF and the ‘Cover Sheet’ for the ITF. 
16 Zadevni obrazci so „Standard Project Submission Form“ za geografske naložbene instrumente, ki jih upravlja EuropeAid, „Project Grant Application Form“ za naložbeni okvir za zahodni Balkan in „Cover Sheet“ za skrbniški sklad EU‐Afrika za infrastrukturo.
ITF project — Power rehabilitation in Benin and Togo The project concerned the construction and refurbishing of electricity transmission lines and substations for a total of 85,7 million euro. 
Projekt skrbniškega sklada EU‐Afrika za infrastrukturo – obnova električnega omrežja v Beninu in Togu Projekt je zadeval izgradnjo in obnovo električnih daljnovodov in postaj, njegova skupna vrednost pa je zna‐ šala 85,7 milijona EUR.
It aimed to improve the reliability and efficiency of the electricity supply in Benin and Togo. 
Njegov namen je bil izboljšati zanesljivost in učinkovitost oskrbe z električno energijo v Beninu in Togu.
The ITF granted an interest rate subsidy of 12,25 million euro which enabled the concessionality level of 35 % to be met, as required by the IMF (see Box 1). 
Skrbniški sklad EU‐Afrika za infrastrukturo je projektu odobril subvencijo obrestne mere v višini 12,25 milijona EUR, kar je omogočilo doseganje ravni koncesivnosti 35 %, kot zahteva Mednarodni denarni sklad (glej okvir 1).
Insufficient information provided by the financial institution The grant application form provided by the financial institutions does not include figures on the financial and economic viability of the project, concessionality and the alignment of the project with the countries’ needs even though it was all available in the financial institution’s files. 
Finančna institucija ni zagotovila zadostnih podatkov Obrazec vloge za nepovratna sredstva, ki ga je predložila finančna institucija, ne vsebuje podatkov o finančni in ekonomski smiselnosti projekta, koncesivnosti in skladnosti projekta s potrebami obeh držav, čeprav so bili navedeni podatki v dokumentaciji finančne institucije na voljo.
Furthermore, the form was unclear about the expected added value of the ITF grant. 
V obrazcu prav tako ni bila jasno navedena pričakovana dodana vrednost nepovratnih sredstev skrbniškega sklada EU‐Afrika za infrastrukturo.
Without this information, the Commission could not carry out an ap‐ propriate assessment of the grant request. Box 2 
Brez teh informacij Komisija ni mogla ustrezno oceniti vloge za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev. Okvir 2
Observations 15 24 An underlying reason why the informa‐ tion provided by the financial institu‐ tions was limited was that projects were often still at the preliminary stage when the grant applications were made. 
Opažanja 15 24 Finančne institucije so predložile omejene informacije v glavnem zato, ker so bili projekti v času predložitve vloge pogosto še v pripravljalni fazi.
The financial institutions decide on their loans at a later stage, i.e. after the feasibility study. 
Finančne institucije o svojih posojilih odločajo kasneje, tj. po opravljeni študiji izvedljivosti.
Their decisions were therefore based on bet‐ ter, more detailed information than the Commission had when it assessed the grant applications. 
Njihove odločitve so tako temeljile na boljših in podrob‐ nejših informacijah, kot jih je imela na voljo Komisija, ko je ocenjevala vloge za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev.
25 Although there is no particular guid‐ ance for this, the Commission has improved its reviews of grant applica‐ tions over time. 
25 Čeprav Komisija v zvezi z ocenjeva‐ njem vlog za dodelitev sredstev ni pripravila posebnih smernic, je svoje ocenjevanje sčasoma izboljšala.
However, the reviews remain largely based on the informa‐ tion presented in the grant application form and are therefore limited by it. 
Ocene še vedno v veliki meri temeljijo na informacijah, predloženih v vlogi za nepovratna sredstva, zato so omeje‐ ne.
For the projects examined, the reviews paid little attention to concessionality, debt sustainability, the grant amount or economic viability. 
Pri pregledanih projektih je bilo v ocenah malo pozornosti namenjene koncesivnosti, vzdržnosti dolga, višini dodeljenih nepovratnih sredstev in ekonomski smiselnosti.
The Commission has not established criteria for the eco‐ nomic viability. 
Komisija ni opredelila meril za ekonomsko smi‐ selnost.
In fact, it has no clear rules or guidance as to which type of development investments should be financed by either grants, loans or a blend of the two. 
Poleg tega ni jasnih pravil ali smernic o tem, katere vrste razvojnih naložb naj bi se financirale z nepo‐ vratnimi sredstvi, katere s posojili in katere s kombinacijo obojega.
26 The Commission’s reviews progressive‐ ly involved the relevant EU delegations by consulting them when assessing grant applications. 
26 Sčasoma so bile v ocene Komisije v vse večji meri vključene ustrezne delegacije EU, in sicer tako, da so bila z njimi opravljena posvetovanja pri ocenjevanju vlog za nepovra‐ tna sredstva.
The Court’s exami‐ nation of projects and interviews with delegation staff indicated that this in‐ volvement was still insufficient, in par‐ ticular during the identification phase. 
Preučitev projektov in intervjuji z uslužbenci v delegacijah, ki jih je izvedlo Sodišče, so pokazali, da to sodelovanje še vedno ne zado‐ stuje, zlasti ne v fazi opredeljevanja projektov.
Only 59 % of the 22 EU delegations that responded to the Court’s survey said they were involved in the identi‐ fication process of blended projects. 
Le 59 % od 22 delegacij EU, ki so se odzvale na anketo Sodišča, je navedlo, da so sodelovale v procesu opredeljevanja projektov, ki naj bi se financirali s kombiniranjem virov sredstev.
This limited the extent of ownership of projects by the delegations. 
To je omejilo obseg vključe‐ nosti delegacij v projekte.
However, once financial institutions applied for a grant, the Commission asked most of the delegations to provide their views on the projects selected for their respective countries. 
Potem ko so finančne institucije predložile vloge za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev, pa je Komisija večino delegacij zaprosila za mnenje o izbranih projektih v njihovih državah.
27 The average number of days from introduction in the pipeline to final board approval is 215 for the ITF, 257 for the LAIF and 290 for the NIF17. 
27 Povprečno število dni od vključitve v načrt za pripravo do končne odobri‐ tve odbora je znašalo 215 dni za skrb‐ niški sklad EU‐Afrika za infrastrukturo, 257 dni za naložbeni instrument za La‐ tinsko Amerike in 290 dni za naložbeni instrument za sosedstvo17.
In the LAIF and the NIF, each project needed provisional and final approval at both technical and board level, which was time‐consuming. 
V okviru naložbenega instrumenta za Latinsko Ameriko in naložbenega instrumenta za sosedstvo je bilo treba vsak projekt začasno in dokončno odobriti tako na tehnični ravni kot na ravni odbora, kar je bilo zelo zamudno.
This procedure was somewhat lighter for the ITF, which did not require provisional approvals18. 
Ta postopek je bil nekoliko lažji za skrbniški sklad EU‐Afrika za infrastrukturo, saj ni zah‐ teval začasnih odobritev18.
Selection of grant type and amount 28 The grant types chosen (see para‐ graph 1) were appropriate for the added value they intended to achieve. 
Izbira vrste in višine nepovratnih sredstev 28 Izbrane vrste nepovratnih sredstev (glej odstavek 1) so bile ustrezne glede na dodano vrednost, ki naj bi jo dosegle.
Only the ITF provided interest rate subsidies; the other regional invest‐ ment facilities did not, even though this was permitted by their regulatory and contractual framework. 
Subvencije obrestnih mer so se zagotavljale le v okviru skrbniške‐ ga sklada EU‐Afrika za infrastrukturo. Ostali regionalni naložbeni instrumenti se te možnosti niso posluževali, čeprav je v regulativnem in pogodbenem okviru dovoljena.
17 The information necessary to calculate this was not available for the other regional investment facilities. 
17 Podatki, ki so bili potrebni za ta izračun, za druge regionalne naložbene instrumente niso bili na voljo.
18 Although the possibility exists for financial institutions to request a so‐called ‘Cleared in principle’ from the Executive Committee. 
18 Finančne institucije imajo možnost, da od izvršilnega odbora zahtevajo t. i. „načelno odobritev“.
Observations 16 29 Eleven of the 30 grants examined by the Court aimed to ensure that the loan met the minimum concessionality level of 35 % required by the IMF (see Box 1). 
Opažanja 16 29 Namen 11 primerov nepovratnih sred‐ stev od 30, ki jih je preučilo Sodišče, je bil zagotoviti, da bo posojilo doseglo najnižjo možno raven koncesivnosti, ki jo zahteva Mednarodni denarni sklad, in sicer 35 % (glej okvir 1).
For seven of these 11 grants, the Court could not obtain evidence from the Commission or the financial institutions showing that the conces‐ sionality level was not higher than needed to meet the IMF requirement. 
Za 7 od teh enajstih primerov nepovratnih sred‐ stev Sodišče od Komisije ali finančnih institucij ni moglo pridobiti dokazov, ki bi kazali, da raven koncesivnosti ni bila višja od ravni, ki je potrebna za izpolni‐ tev zahtev Mednarodnega denarnega sklada.
In one case, the concessionality level exceeded the minimum of 35 % with‐ out the Commission being informed of it. 
V enem od primerov je raven koncesivnosti presegala najnižjo zahte‐ vano raven 35 %, ne da bi bila Komisija o tem obveščena.
30 There were no established criteria for setting the amounts of grants where the main objective was other than compliance with IMF requirements. 
30 Merila za določanje višine nepovratnih sredstev v primerih, ko glavni cilj ni bil doseganje skladnosti z zahtevami Mednarodnega denarnega sklada, niso bila opredeljena.
In the cases examined, it was often un‐ clear how amounts had been decided upon. 
V preučenih primerih način odločanja o višini dodeljenih sredstev pogosto ni bil jasen.
Furthermore, the Commission did not consider it necessary to carry out a rigorous verification of the way the grant amounts requested by finan‐ cial institutions have been calculated. 
Poleg tega se Komisiji ni zdelo potrebno, da bi temeljito preverila način izračuna‐ vanja višine nepovratnih sredstev, za katera so predložile vloge finančne institucije.
31 In theory, financial institutions could set an interest rate that is higher than normal and have it accepted by the beneficiary by including a grant in the financial package. 
31 Finančne institucije bi teoretično lahko določile obrestno mero, višjo od obi‐ čajne, na katero bi upravičenec pristal ob vključitvi nepovratnih sredstev v finančni paket.
Consequently, there is a risk that the benefit of grants is not fully transferred to the beneficiary. 
Zato obstaja tvega‐ nje, da se koristi nepovratnih sredstev na upravičence ne bi prenesle v celoti.
Although the public development financial institutions are responsible for providing the most appropriate financing conditions, neither the Com‐ mission nor the Court can exclude that this risk may materialise as they don’t have the means to examine this due to the confidentiality of how interest rates are set19. 
Čeprav so javne finančne institucije, ki financirajo razvoj, zadolžene za zagotavljanje najustreznejših pogojev financiranja, ne Komisija ne Sodišče ne moreta izključiti možnosti, da se to tveganje uresniči, saj zaradi tajnosti določanja obrestnih mer teh podatkov ne moreta preveriti19.
The Commission makes advance disbursements that are unnecessarily high 32 Once grants have been approved and agreements signed, consider‐ able advance disbursements were made. 
Vnaprejšnja izplačila Komi‐ sije so nepotrebno visoka 32 Po odobritvi nepovratnih sredstev in podpisu pogodb so bila izvedena pre‐ cejšnja vnaprejšnja izplačila.
The Commission had the funds available and transferred these before they were needed. 
Komisija je sredstva imela na voljo in jih prene‐ sla, še preden so bila potrebna.
The beneficiary used these funds slowly because it took time to set up the project and contract the necessary services and works and because of the duration of implementation. 
Upra‐ vičenci so ta sredstva porabljali počasi, saj so za zagon projekta in oddajo naročil za storitve in dela potrebovali čas, k počasni porabi pa je prispevalo tudi trajanje izvajanja projekta.
The funds trans‐ ferred remained therefore unused for long periods of time, contrary to the principles of sound financial manage‐ ment (see Box 3 for an example). 
Prene‐ sena sredstva tako dlje časa niso bila porabljena, kar je v nasprotju z načeli dobrega finančnega poslovodenja (za primer glej okvir 3).
As a consequence, the budgetary outturn does not reflect the actual underlying activity of the facilities. 
Realizacija prora‐ čuna zato ne odraža dejanskih dejav‐ nosti naložbenih instrumentov.
33 For the ITF, the Commission makes transfers to the fund and then the EIB, as manager of the fund, trans‐ fers grants from the fund to the lead financial institution. 
33 Kar se tiče skrbniškega sklada EU‐Afri‐ ka za infrastrukturo, Komisija sredstva najprej nakaže skladu, nato pa Evrop‐ ska investicijska banka kot upravitelj sklada sredstva iz sklada nakaže vodilni finančni instituciji.
The ITF’s execu‐ tive board approves grants for a total that does not exceed the cash balance available in the fund. 
Izvršilni odbor skrbniškega sklada EU‐Afrika za infrastrukturo odobri nepovratna sredstva v skupni višini, ki ne prese‐ ga stanja denarnih sredstev v skladu.
With this prudent approach, the ITF ensures that it will be able to meet its commitments. 
S tem preudarnim pristopom skrbni‐ ški sklad EU‐Afrika za infrastrukturo zagotavlja, da bo sposoben izpolniti svoje zaveze.
As it takes time before project implementa‐ tion actually starts, the beneficiary will disburse the respective amounts only some years later. 
Ker se projekti dejansko začnejo izvajati kasneje, upravičenec zadevna sredstva izplača šele čez nekaj let.
As a result, a large amount of money lies dormant in the fund’s bank account for years (see the Figure). 
Zato je na bančnem računu sklada lahko tudi po več let visoka vsota neiz‐ koriščenega denarja (glej diagram).
19 As already observed by the Court in paragraph 3.2 of Special Report No 3/99 on the management and control of interest rate subsidies by the Commission (OJ C 217, 29.7.1999, p. 
19 To je Sodišče že ugotovilo v odstavku 3.2 Posebnega poročila št. 3/99 o upravljanju in nadzoru subvencioniranja obrestnih mer, ki ga izvaja Komisija (UL C 217, 29.7.1999, str.
Observations 17 NIF project — Second phase of the Tunis fast railway network This 550 million euro project finances the construction of priority sections of two new lines of the high‐speed urban railway network of Tunis. 
Opažanja 17 Projekt naložbenega instrumenta za sosedstvo – druga faza omrežja hitre žele‐ znice v Tunisu V okviru 550 milijonov EUR vrednega projekta se je financirala izgradnja prednostnih delov dveh novih linij omrežja hitre mestne železnice v Tunisu.
The NIF grant of 28 million euro provides technical assistance to the contract‐ ing authority and the supervisor. 
Namen nepovratnih sredstev iz naložbenega instrumenta za sosed‐ stvo v višini 28 milijonov EUR je zagotoviti tehnično pomoč naročniku in nadzorniku.
Unnecessarily high advance disbursement of the NIF grant In 2010, the Commission transferred the entire grant to the beneficiary. 
Nepotrebno visoko vnaprejšnje izplačilo nepovratnih sredstev iz naložbenega instrumenta za sosedstvo Leta 2010 je Komisija upravičencu nakazala celoten znesek nepovratnih sredstev.
The financial institutions disbursed their loans only when the beneficiary needed the funds. 
Finančne institucije so svoja posojila izplačale šele, ko je upravičenec sredstva potreboval.
As the project experienced significant implementa‐ tion delays, the first loan disbursement took place only in 2013. 
Ker je pri projektu prišlo do precejšnjih zamud pri izvajanju, je bilo prvo izplačilo posojila izvedeno šele leta 2013.
Due to the delays, 24,5 million euro of the NIF grant was left unused for more than 3 years. 
Zaradi zamud je bilo 24,5 milijona EUR sredstev iz naložbenega instrumenta za sosedstvo neporabljenih več kot tri leta.
ITF Cash flow movements million euro 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Source: ITF Secretariat. Cumulative cash inflow Cash in hand 2007 2008 2009 Cumulative cash outflow 2010 2011 2012 2013 Figure Box 3 
Spremembe denarnih tokov skrbniškega sklada EU‐Afrika za infrastrukturo (v milijonih EUR) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Skupni denarni pritok Denar v blagajni Skupni denarni odtok 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 Vir: Sekretariat skrbniškega sklada EU‐Afrika za infrastrukturo. Diagram Okvir 3
Observations 18 In the case of sub-facilities, the criteria for awarding sub-loans were vague or broad 34 For the eight sub‐facilities (see para‐ graph 11) examined by the Court (see Annex VIII), there was no provision that the activities to be financed by the sub‐facility should be individually approved ex ante by the Commission and in only one case were they ap‐ proved by the financial institution. 
Opažanja 18 Pri podinstrumentih so bila merila za dodeljevanje pod‐ posojil nejasna ali široka 34 Za osem podinstrumentov (glej odsta‐ vek 11), ki jih je preučilo Sodišče (glej prilogo VIII), ni bilo določila, v skla‐ du s katerim bi morala ukrepe, ki jih financira podinstrument, predhodno odobriti Komisija, le v enem primeru pa jih je odobrila finančna institucija.
At the same time, the criteria for selecting activities eligible for sub‐loans were vague or very broad in the majority of the cases20, with no mention of the sectors and priorities concerned. 
Obenem so bila merila za izbiro dejavnosti, upravičenih do podposo‐ jil, v večini primerov nejasna ali zelo široka,20 pri čemer zadevni sektorji ali prednostne naloge niso bili navedeni.
The Commission could not therefore be certain that the expenditure focused on EU priorities (see Box 4 for an example). 
Komisija zato ni mogla z gotovostjo ugotoviti, ali so bili odhodki osredo‐ točeni na prednostne naloge EU (za primer glej okvir 4).
20 With the exception of the Geothermal Risk Mitigation Facility. 
20 Z izjemo Instrumenta za zmanjševanje geotermalnih tveganj.
NIF project — SME Finance Facility The SME Finance Facility, which had a total of 150 million euro to allocate consisted of two products. 
Projekt naložbenega instrumenta za sosedstvo – instrument za financiranje MSP Instrument za financiranje MSP, ki je imel za dodelitev na voljo sredstva v višini 150 milijonov EUR, je bil sestavljen iz dveh produktov.
The first provided technical assistance to the local partner financial institutions and a loss risk sharing facility to loan portfolios. 
Prvi je zagotavljal tehnično pomoč lokalnim partnerskim finančnim institu‐ cijam in mehanizem za delitev tveganja izgube za posojilne portfelje.
The second provided technical assistance and interest‐free loans in order to reduce interest rates and provide a loss/risk‐sharing cushion. 
Drugi je zagotavljal tehnično pomoč in brezobrestna posojila z namenom zmanjšanja obrestnih mer in zagotavljanja rezerve za izgubo/delitev tveganja.
The NIF grant for this project was 15 million euro. 
Nepovratna sredstva za ta projekt, dodeljena iz naložbenega instrument za sosedstvo, so znašala 15 milijonov EUR.
Broad criteria for selecting activities to be financed by the sub-facility The grant application form provided by the financial institutions did not clearly indicate at which level the sub‐loans needed to be approved. 
Široka merila za izbiro dejavnosti, ki se financirajo iz podinstrumenta Na obrazcu vloge za nepovratna sredstva, ki so ga predložile finančne institucije, ni bilo jasno navedeno, na kateri ravni je potrebno odobriti podposojila.
It also failed to specify the responsibility of the lead financier in the ap‐ praisal and selection process. 
Prav tako niso bile navedene pristojnosti vodilnega ponudnika financiranja v procesu ocenjevanja in izbire.
There was no provision for the selection process to take account of the EU priorities as the eligibility criteria accepted investments in all sectors. 
Določba, v skladu s katero bi se pri procesu izbire morale upo‐ števati prednostne naloge EU, ni obstajala, saj so bile glede na merila za upravičenost sprejete naložbe v vse sektorje.
Furthermore, reporting requirements for project follow‐up were not clearly specified. 
Poleg tega niso bile jasno opredeljene zahteve o poročanju glede nadaljnjega spremljanja projekta.
The extent of the Commission’s monitoring of the implementation of grants varied 35 The secretariats of the regional invest‐ ment facilities are responsible for overall financial monitoring of the facilities. 
Obseg, v katerem je Komi‐ sija spremljala izvrševanje nepovratnih sredstev, je bil različen 35 Sekretariati regionalnih instrumentov za spodbujanje naložb so odgovor‐ ni za splošno finančno spremljanje instrumentov.
The financial institutions monitor the implementation of the projects themselves. 
Izvrševanje projektov spremljajo finančne institucije same.
At Commission level, responsibility for following up grants lies with the EU delegations. 
Na ravni Komisije so za nadaljnje spremljanje nepovratnih sredstev pri‐ stojne delegacije EU.
The extent of their follow‐up varied due to the absence of clear internal guidelines (see paragraph 19) and the different levels of involvement by the delegations in the identification of projects (see paragraph 26). 
Obseg njihovega spremljanja je bil različen, saj ni bilo jasnih notranjih smernic (glej odsta‐ vek 19), delegacije pa so pri opredelitvi projektov sodelovale v različni meri (glej odstavek 26).
In addi‐ tion, contractual arrangements with the financial institutions to provide information were unclear and insuffi‐ ciently demanding. 
Poleg tega so bili pogodbeni dogovori s finančnimi insti‐ tucijami glede zagotavljanja informacij nejasni in premalo zahtevni.
Observations 19 36 Performance monitoring has been limited and unstructured so far. 
Opažanja 19 36 Doslej je bilo spremljanje uspešnosti omejeno in nestrukturirano.
Within the EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation, a results‐based monitoring system is being designed to include a set of standard indicators for monitoring purposes. 
V okviru platforme EU za kombiniranje na po‐ dročju zunanjega sodelovanja poteka oblikovanje sistema spremljanja na podlagi rezultatov, ki bo zajemal sklop standardnih kazalnikov za spremljanje.
37 As with other development projects financed by the EU, the Commission randomly selected blended projects for Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM). 
37 Tako kot pri drugih razvojnih projektih, ki jih financira EU, je Komisija naključ‐ no izbrala nekaj projektov, ki se finan‐ cirajo s kombiniranjem virov sredstev, za namene spremljanja, usmerjenega k rezultatom (ROM).