natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If these are achieved, it should lead to more effective interventions2. III While the rules and structures set up by the Commission largely reflected best practice at the time, best practice has continued to evolve. 
Če bomo to dosegli, bi morali ukrepi postati uspešnejši.2 III Medtem ko so pravila in strukture, ki jih je uvedla Komisija, povečini odzražali tedanjo najboljšo prakso, se je najboljša praksa razvijala še naprej.
We thus examined the current governance arrangements at the Commission with a focus on audit, financial management and control to see whether they are in line with best practice and whether they still meet the needs of the institution. 
Zato je Računsko sodišče preučilo sedanje ureditve upravljanja na Komisiji, pri čemer se je osredotočilo na revizijo, finančno poslovodenje in kontrolo, da bi ugotovilo, ali so skladni z najboljšo prakso in ali še vedno izpolnjujejo potrebe institucije.
IV Best practice has continued to evolve since the 2000 reforms. 
IV Najboljša praksa se je po reformah leta 2000 še naprej razvijala.
Although some action3 has been taken, we conclude that in several areas the Commission diverges from, or does not meet in full best practice set out in standards or put in place by the international and public bodies we selected as benchmarks. 
Čeprav je bilo sprejetih nekaj ukrepov3, je Računsko sodišče prišlo do zaključka, da se je Komisija na več področjih oddaljila od najboljših praks, določenih v standardih, ali tistih, ki so jih uvedli mednarodni in javni organi, ki smo jih izbrali za referenčno merilo, ali pa teh praks ni v celoti izvajala.
1 European Commission: Public Internal Control System: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/pic/index_en.cfm 2 See Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)/International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), ‘International Framework: Good Governance in the Public Sector’, 2014, p. 6. 
1 Evropska komisija: Sistem notranjega nadzora javnih financ: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/pic/index_en.cfm 2 Glej Inštitut za javne finance in računovodstvo (CIPFA)/Mednarodna zveza računovodskih strokovnjakov (IFAC), International Framework: Good Governance in the Public Sector (Mednarodni okvir: dobro upravljanje v javnem sektorju), 2014, str. 6.
3 Including the publication alongside the accrual-based EU accounts of the financial statement discussion and analysis, reporting on performance (resulting in 2015 in an integration with reporting on management in the annual management and performance report) and the transition to the updated 2013 COSO internal control – integrated framework. 
3 Vključno z objavo razprave in analize računovodskih izkazov skupaj z računovodskimi izkazi EU na podlagi nastanka poslovnega dogodka, poročanjem o smotrnosti (ki je bilo letu 2015 združeno s poročanjem o upravljanju v letnem poročilu o upravljanju in smotrnosti izvrševanja proračuna) in prehodom na posodobljeno notranjo kontrolo COSO 2013 – celostni okvir.
Executive summary 08 VThe distinction made between the ‘political responsibility of commissioners’ and the operational responsibility of directors-general means that it has not always been made clear whether ‘political responsibility’ encompasses responsibility for the directorates-general, or is distinct from it. 
Povzetek 08 VRazlikovanje med „politično odgovornostjo komisarjev“ in operativno odgovornostjo generalnih direktorjev pomeni, da ni bilo vedno jasno, ali „politična odgovornost“ obsega odgovornost za generalne direktorate ali je od njih ločena.
Recent organisational reforms are beginning to address some of the risks of a ‘silo’ culture. 
Z nedavnimi organizacijskimi reformami se začenjajo obravnavati nekatera tveganja, ki jih prinaša orga­ nizacijska kultura, za katero je značilna zaprtost posameznih organizacijskih enot (t. i. silosna mentaliteta).
But to continue to address key risks the Commission will need to further strengthen the governance structure across the institution. 
Toda če bo Komisija želela še naprej obravnavati ključna tveganja, bo morala dodatno okrepiti strukturo upravljanja v insti­ tuciji kot celoti.
VI The Internal Audit Service focuses its efforts on the Commission’s internal control systems. 
VI Služba za notranjo revizijo se osredotoča na sisteme notranje kontrole na Komisiji.
In recent years its coverage of institution-wide governance issues included corporate information security. 
V zadnjih letih so obravnavana vprašanja v zvezi z upravljanjem na ravni institucije vključevala informacijsko varnost organizacije.
Spending outside the Commission — for which the Commission is responsible — is the responsibility of audit directorates and units in the spending directorates-general. 
Za porabo zunaj Komisije, za katero je Komisija odgovorna, so odgovorni direktorati in enote za revizijo v generalnih direktoratih, ki sredstva porabijo.
This has an impact on the information presented to the Commission’s audit committee. 
To vpliva na informacije, predložene revizijskemu odboru Komisije.
The role of the Audit Progress Committee (and the participation of independent, external members) is more limited than that of audit committees at international bodies we selected as benchmarks. 
Vloga Odbora za sprem­ ljanje poteka revizij (in sodelujočih neodvisnih zunanjih članov) je bolj omejena od vloge revizijskih odborov pri mednarodnih organih, ki smo jih izbrali za referenčno merilo.
VII The Commission has recently begun to accompany the accounts with non-financial information. 
VII Komisija je računovodskim izkazom nedavno začela prilagati nefinančne informacije.
However, despite recent improvements, it still provides less non-financial information alongside the accounts than organisations we selected as benchmarks for best practice do. 
Kljub tem izboljšavam pa je nefinančnih informacij še vedno manj kot pri organizacijah, ki smo jih izbrali za referenčno merilo za najboljšo prakso.
VIII We recommend that the Commission should: ο as required of European public interest entities, when it decides not to follow best practice, explain its reasons for not doing so; ο invite the IAS to carry out more audit work on high level governance issues; ο complete the process of aligning its internal control framework with the COSO 2013 principles; ο further bring forward the publication of the annual accounts; 
VIII Evropsko računsko sodišče priporoča, naj Komisija: ο kadar se odloči, da ne bo upoštevala najboljše prakse, navede razloge, zakaj se je tako odločila; ο Službo za notranjo revizijo pozove, naj izvede več revizijskega dela v zvezi z upravljanjem na visoki ravni; ο zaključi proces usklajevanja svojega okvira za notranjo kontrolo z načeli COSO 2013; ο dodatno skrajša čas do objave letnih računovodskih izkazov;
Introduction 10 Getting governance right is a priority in public and 01 A series of corporate failures during the 1990s brought the issue of corporate governance into the public eye — and made improving governance arrangements in the private sector a key policy priority. 
Uvod 10 Ustrezno upravljanje je prednostna naloga v organih 01 Vrsta propadlih podjetij v 90. letih 20. stoletja je v javnosti odprla vprašanje upravljanja organizacij, na podlagi tega pa je izboljšanje ureditev upravljanja v zasebnem sektorju postalo ključna prednostna naloga politike.
Typically these failures involved a situation where the full extent of a risk, or of irregular behaviour was either not known by members of the governing body, or known only to a small number of dominant (usually executive) board members. 
Za te propa­ de je bilo običajno značilno, da člani organa upravljanja niso poznali celotnega obsega tveganja ali nepravilnega vedenja ali pa ga je poznalo le majhno število dominantnih (običajno izvršnih) članov upravnega odbora.
Concerns over failures in the private sector led to changes in EU legislation, requiring all public interest enti-ties4 to comply with a code of governance5 and to confirm this in their published annual report and financial statements. 
Zaskrbljenost zaradi propadov podjetij v zasebnem sektorju je vodila k spremembam zakonodaje EU, na podlagi katerih morajo vsi subjekti javnega interesa4 delovati v skladu s ko­ deksom upravljanja5 ter to potrditi v svojih objavljenih letnih poročilih in letnih računovodskih izkazih.
02 The move to adopt good governance arrangements extended into the public sector. 
02 Pobuda za sprejemanje ureditev za dobro upravljanje se je razširila tudi na javni sektor.
The CIPFA/IFAC document Good Governance in the Public Sector6 (GGPS) is a recent reflection of this, as is the EU-led PIC7 initiative, focused on the appropriate governance and control arrangements for countries seeking admission to the EU. 
To se je nedavno pokazalo z dokumentom CIPFA/IFAC Good governance in the Public Sector6 (GGPS) (Dobro upravljanje v javnem sektorju) in s pobudo PIC7, ki jo vodi EU in se osredotoča na ustrezne ureditve upravljanja in kontrole v drža­ vah, ki želijo pristopiti k EU.
03 Good governance (see Box 1) is not just about relationships, it is about achieving results, and providing decision-makers with the tools to do their job. 
03 Pri dobrem upravljanju (glej okvir 1) ne gre le za odnose, ampak za doseganje rezultatov in zagotavljanje orodij odločevalcem, da ti lahko opravljajo svoje delo.
4 Such as companies listed on a stock exchange (Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ L 145, 30.4.2004., p. 
4 Kot so podjetja, ki kotirajo na borzi (Direktiva 2004/39/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. aprila 2004 o trgih finančnih instrumentov in o spremembah direktiv Sveta 85/611/EGS, 93/6/EGS in Direktive 2000/12/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta ter o razveljavitvi Direktive Sveta 93/22/EGS (UL L 145, 30.4.2004, str.
5 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 
5 Direktiva 2013/34/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 26. junija 2013 o letnih računovodskih izkazih, konsolidiranih računovodskih izkazih in povezanih poročilih nekaterih vrst podjetij (UL L 182, 29.6.2013, str.
19) (as amended by Directive 2014/95/EU (OJ L 330, 15.11.2014, p. 
19) (kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2014/95/EU (UL L 330, 15.11.2014, str.
1)) (Accounting Directive). 
1)) (računovodska direktiva).
6 Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)/International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), ‘International Framework: Good Governance in the Public Sector’, 2014. 
6 Inštitut za javne finance in računovodstvo (CIPFA)/ Mednarodna zveza računovodskih strokovnjakov (IFAC), International Framework: Good Governance in the Public Sector (Mednarodni okvir: Dobro upravljanje v javnem sektorju), 2014.
7 Public Internal Control is a platform for exchange of information and good practices between public administrations in the EU. private sector bodies Good governance ‘Good governance in the public sector encourages better-informed decision-making as well as the efficient use of resources. 
7 Notranji nadzor javnih financ je platforma za izmenjavo informacij in dobrih praks med javnimi upravami v EU. javnega in zasebnega sektorja Dobro upravljanje Dobro upravljanje v javnem sektorju spodbuja bolj informirano odločanje in učinkovito uporabo sredstev.
It strengthens accountability for the stewardship of those resources. 
Povečuje odgovornost za upravljanje teh sredstev.
Good governance is characterised by robust scrutiny, which places important pressures on improving public sector performance and tackling corruption. 
Zanj je značilen zanesljiv nadzor, ki ustvarja pomemben pritisk za izboljšanje uspešnosti javnega sektorja in preprečevanje korupcije.
Good governance can improve organisational leadership, management, and oversight, resulting in more effective interventions and, ultimately, better outcomes.’8. 8 Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)/International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), ‘International Framework: Good Governance in the Public Sector,’, 2014, p. 
Z dobrim upravljanjem se lahko izboljšajo vodenje in upravljanje organizacije ter pregled nad njenim delovanjem, zaradi česar so posredova­ nja uspešnejša, na koncu pa doseženi boljši rezultati.8 8 Inštitut za javne finance in računovodstvo (CIPFA)/Mednarodna zveza računovodskih strokovnjakov (IFAC), International Framework: Good Governance in the Public Sector (Mednarodni okvir: Dobro upravljanje v javnem sektorju), 2014, str.
Introduction 11 04 Concerns about governance in the European Commission came to a head in 1999 with the resignation of the Santer Commission and, particularly, with the report of the Committee of Independent Experts (CIE) appointed by Parliament to investigate the problems behind the resignation and to recommend a way forward. 
Uvod 11 04 Zaskrbljenost zaradi upravljanja v Evropski komisiji je dosegla vrhunec leta 1999 z odstopom Santerjeve Komisije, zlasti z objavo poročila Odbora neodvisnih strokovnjakov (CIE), ki ga je Parlament imenoval, da bi preiskal težave, ki so povzročile odstop, in priporočil, kako nadaljevati.
These events, and the report of the CIE, led to the Prodi Commission agreeing, in 2000, on a comprehensive reform package, intended to modernise the governance of the Commission (the ‘Prodi reform’). 
Na podlagi teh dogodkov in poročila Odbora neodvisnih strokovnjakov se je Prodijeva Komisija leta 2000 strinjala s sprejetjem obsežnega svežnja reform, katerih cilj je bil poso­ dobiti upravljanje Komisije (t. i.
The White Paper, the resignation of the Commission, and the report of the CIE continue to influence decision-making in the Commission to this day. 
Bela knjiga, odstop Komisije in poročilo Odbora neodvisnih strokovnjakov še danes vplivajo na odločanje na Komisiji.
Governance and accountability frameworks ‘Governance comprises the arrangements put in place to ensure that the intended outcomes for stakeholders are defined and achieved’, according to Good Governance in the Public Sector. 
Okviri za upravljanje in odgovornost V dokumentu Dobro upravljanje v javnem sektorju je navedeno, da upravljanje obsega ureditve, vzpostav­ ljene za zagotovitev, da so želeni rezultati za deležnike opredeljeni in doseženi.
The COSO 20139 principles state that the governing body ‘demonstrates independence from management and exercises oversight of the development and performance of internal control’10 (see Box 10). 
Načela COSO 20139 določajo, da mora biti organ upravljanja neodvisen od upravljanja ter izvajati pregled nad razvojem in uspešnostjo notranje kontrole10 (glej okvir 10).
Accountability is a key element of governance, especially in the public sector. 
Odgovornost je ključni element upravljanja, zlasti v javnem sektorju.
IFAC defines it as ‘the process whereby public sector entities, and the individuals within them, are responsible for their decisions and actions, including their stewardship of public funds and all aspects of performance, and submit themselves to appropriate external scrutiny. 
Mednarodna zveza računovodskih strokovnjakov (IFAC) jo opredeljuje kot proces, v katerem so subjekti javnega sektorja in posamezniki v teh subjektih odgovorni za svoje odločitve in dejanja, vključno z upravljanjem javnih sredstev in vsemi vidiki uspešnosti, in pristanejo na ustrezen zunanji nadzor.
It is achieved by all parties having a clear understanding of those responsibilities, and having clearly defined roles through a robust structure. 
Doseže se tako, da se vse strani jasno zavedajo svojih odgovornosti in imajo jasno opredeljene vloge v okviru trdne strukture.
In effect, accountability is the obligation to answer for responsibility conferred.’11. The Commission is involved in promoting good governance in the EU Member States through the PIC network. 
Odgovornost je torej obveznost od­ govarjanja za dodeljene odgovornosti.11 Komisija je v spodbujanje dobrega upravljanja v državah članicah EU vključena prek mreže PIC.
It has stressed the importance of sound control and the use of best practice standards: ‘We are living in times of substantial pressure on public finances at all levels in the EU. 
Poudarja pomen zanesljive kontrole in uporabe standardov najboljših praks: „Živimo v obdobju velikega pritiska na javne finance na vseh ravneh v EU.
More than ever, taxpayers in every Member State expect value for money and the public sector is held accountable for sound and efficient management of funds entrusted to it. 
Davkoplačevalci v vseh državah članicah bolj kot kdaj koli prej pričakujejo stroškovno učinkovitost. Javni sektor je odgovoren za zanesljivo in učinkovito upravljanje sredstev, ki so mu zaupana.
The public sector must demonstrate that resources are spent efficiently, and that output and outcomes are effective. 
Dokazati mora, da se sredstva porabljajo učinkovito ter da so izidi in rezultati uspešni.
Under such conditions, it is paramount that state-of-the-art frameworks and standards are implemented in the public sector.’12. These are examples of best practice drawn from relevant codes and guidance. 
V takih razme­ rah je izjemno pomembno, da se v javnem sektorju uporabljajo najsodobnejši okviri in standardi.“12 To so primeri najboljše prakse, povzeti iz ustreznih kodeksov in smernic.
Throughout this report we use GUIDELINES the symbol GOVGEORONDANCE to designate boxes presenting such examples. 
V tem poročilu uporabljamo simbol za označevanje okvirov, v katerih so predstavljeni taki primeri.
BEST PRACTICE 9 Committee of Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), Internal Control – Integrated Framework, 2013. 
Smernice za dobro upravljanje NA JBOL JŠA PRAKSA 9 Odbor sponzorskih organizacij Treadwayeve komisije (COSO), Internal Control – Integrated Framework (Notranja kontrola – Celostni okvir), 2013.
10 Source: Internal Control – Integrated Framework, Executive Summary, © Committee of Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 
10 Vir: Internal Control – Integrated Framework, Executive Summary (Notranja kontrola – Celostni okvir, povzetek), © Odbor sponzorskih organizacij Treadwayeve komisije (COSO).
11 IFAC Public Sector Committee, ‘Governance in the Public Sector: A Governing Body Perspective’, 2001, p. 
11 IFAC, Odbor za javni sektor, Governance in the Public Sector: A Governing Body Perspective (Upravljanje v javnem sektorju: vidik upravljavskega organa), 2001, str.
12 European Commission: Public Internal Control System: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/pic/index_en.cfm Box 2 
12 Evropska komisija: Sistem notranjega nadzora javnih financ: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/pic/index_en.cfm Okvir 2
Introduction 12 05 The Commission based its reform programme on three pillars: reforms to priority-setting and budgeting, modernising human resources policy, and improvements to audit, financial management, and control (Figure 1). 
Uvod 12 05 Reformni program Komisije temelji na treh stebrih: reforme določanja prioritet in priprave proračuna, posodobitev kadrovske politike ter izboljšanje revizije, finančnega poslovodenja in kontrole (slika 1).
The Commission argued that five main principles should underlie a period of ‘cultural change’: independence of the Commission, responsibility, accountability, efficiency in the achievement of results and transparency. 
Po mnenju Komisije mora obdobje „spremembe kulture“ temeljiti na petih glavnih načelih: neodvisnosti Komisije, pristojnosti, odgovornosti, učinkovitosti pri doseganju rezultatov in preglednosti.
Three pillars of the Prodi (White Paper) reform 2000 White Paper Reform Setting up of political priorities and resource allocation Pillars Goals Introduce a more effective method for setting priorities and allocating resources to them Modernise human resources policy from recruitment to retirement [...] for the benefit of staff of all grades Improve financial management, efficiency and accountability Human resources policy Audit, financial management and control Source: European Court of Auditors (ECA) based on COM(2000) 200 final/2 ‘Reforming the Commission, A White Paper - Part I’. 
Trije stebri Prodijeve reforme (bela knjiga) Bela knjiga o reformi iz leta 2000 Določitev prednostnih nalog za posamezne politike in dodelitev virov Stebri Cilji Uvesti uspešnejšo metodo določanja prednostnih nalog in dodeljevanja virov Posodobiti kadrovske politike od zaposlovanja do upokojitve [...] v prid zaposlenih na vseh položajih Izboljšati finančno poslovodenje, učinkovitost in odgovornost Kadrovska politika Revizija, finančno poslovodenje in nadzor Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče (ERS), na podlagi COM(2000) 200 final/2 z naslovom Reforming the Commission, A White Paper – Part I (Reforma Komisije, bela knjiga – 1. del).
Introduction 13 06 The first pillar of the reform introduced new planning and monitoring tools for each Commission department (management plans (MPs) and AARs). 
Uvod 13 06 V okviru prvega stebra reforme so bila za vse oddelke Komisije uvedena nova orodja za načrtovanje in spremljanje (načrti upravljanja in letna poročila o de­ javnostih).
The third pillar (Box 3) simplified rules for authorising expenditure. 
V okviru tretjega stebra (okvir 3) so bila poenostavljena pravila za odobritev odhodkov.
One issue of intense debate was the way the different responsibilities within the Commission were to be managed and combined. 
Eno od vprašanj, o katerih se je intenzivno razpravljalo, je bil način, kako upravljati in združiti različne odgovornosti v Komisiji.
The key roles were those of the Commission as a college, the individual commissioners, the financial controller and the directorates-general (DGs) (and the directors-general who have the chief administrative role within them). 
Pri tem so se obravnavale ključne vloge, in sicer vloga Komisije kot kolegija ter vloge posa­ meznih komisarjev, finančnega nadzornika in generalnih direktoratov (GD) (in generalnih direktorjev, ki imajo v njih glavno izvršno vlogo).