natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The EU contribution under FP7 for the JTIs is more than 3 billion euro. 
Prispevek EU za skupne tehnološke pobude v okviru 7. OP znaša več kot 3 milijarde EUR.
Bipartite JTIs are partnerships between the EU and industry associations, whereas tripartite JTIs include the EU, industry associations and participating Member States (see Table 1). 
Dvostranske skupne tehnološke pobude so partnerstva med EU in industrijskimi združenji, tristranske skupne tehnološke pobude pa vključujejo EU, industrijska združenja in udeležene države članice (glej razpredelnico 1).
For instance, the European Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Nanoelectronics (ENIAC) combines the Commission, participating Member States14 and the Association for European Nanoelectronics Activities. 
Tako na primer Evropsko skupno podjetje za izvajanje skupne tehnološke pobude za nanoelektroniko (ENIAC) združuje Komisijo, udeležene države članice14 in Združenje za evropske dejavnosti na področju nanoelektronike.
13 Special Report No 1/2004 on the management of indirect RTD actions under the Fifth Framework Programme (FP5) for research and technological development (1998 to 2002), together with the Commission’s replies (OJ C 99, 23.4.2004, p. 
13 Posebno poročilo št. 1/2004 o upravljanju posrednih dejavnosti RTR v sklopu 5. okvirnega programa (5. OP) za raziskave in tehnološki razvoj (1998–2002), skupaj z odgovori Komisije (UL C 99, 23.4.2004, str.
1). 14 ENIAC Member States are Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Norway. 
1). 14 V pobudi ENIAC sodelujejo naslednje države članice: Belgija, Češka republika, Nemčija, Estonija, Irska, Grčija, Španija, Francija, Italija, Latvija, Madžarska, Nizozemska, Avstrija, Poljska, Portugalska, Romunija, Slovaška, Finska, Švedska, Združeno kraljestvo in Norveška.
The RSFF is a financial instrument designed to improve access to debt financing of research, development and innovation (RDI) investments on acceptable terms for private companies or public institutions promoting activities in the RDI field. 
Sklad za financiranje na osnovi delitve tveganja (RSFF) je finančni instrument, zasnovan za izboljšanje dostopa zasebnih podjetij ali javnih ustanov, ki spodbujajo dejavnosti na področju RRI, do dolžniškega financiranja naložb v raziskave, razvoj in inovacije (RRI) pod sprejemljivimi pogoji.
Target beneficiaries of the RSFF also include European research-intensive entities and research infrastructures. 
Ciljni upravičenci RSFF so tudi evropski raziskovalno intenzivni subjekti in raziskovalne infrastrukture.
The European Commission, through DG Research and Innovation, monitors the RSFF in terms of eligibility of projects and budget allocation from FP7, while the EIB is in charge of the daily operations. 
RSFF nadzira Evropska komisija po Generalnem direktoratu za raziskave in inovacije, in sicer upravičenost projektov in dodelitev proračuna iz 7.
The instrument is jointly financed by the EU and the EIB. 
OP, za vsakodnevne operacije pa je odgovorna EIB.
TABLE 1 OVERVIEW OF THE JOINT TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES 16 Joint technology initiative Strategic objective Maximum EU contribution (in million euro) Bipartite JTIs Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) To speed up the development of better and safer medicines for patients 1 000 Clean sky To develop breakthrough technologies to significantly increase the environmental performance of airplanes and air transport, resulting in less noisy and more fuel-efficient aircraft 800 Fuel, Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH) To accelerate the market introduction of fuel cell and hydrogen energy technologies in Europe 470 Tripartite JTIs ENIAC Focusing on nanoelectronics to enhance the further integration and miniaturisation of devices and increase their functionalities 450 Artemis To tackle the research and structural challenges in the area of embedded computing systems 420 Source: Council decisions establishing the JTIs. 
Največji prispevek EU za RSFF v okviru 7. OP je bil omejen na eno milijardo EUR. RAZPREDELNICA 1 PREGLED SKUPNIH TEHNOLOŠKIH POBUD 16 Skupna tehnološka pobuda Strateški cilj Največji prispevek EU (v milijonih EUR) Dvostranske pobude Pobuda za inovativna zdravila (IMI) Za hitrejši razvoj boljših in varnejših zdravil za bolnike 1 000 Čisto nebo Za razvoj prodornih tehnologij, ki bodo znatno povečale okoljsko učinkovitost letal in zračnega prometa ter pripomogle k manj hrupnim in varčnejšim zrakoplovom 800 Skupno podjetje za gorivne celice in vodik (GCV) Za hitrejšo uvedbo tehnologij energije gorivnih celic in vodika na evropskem trgu 470 Tristranske pobude ENIAC Osredotoča se na nanoelektroniko za okrepitev nadaljnjega povezovanja in miniaturizacije naprav ter povečanje njihove funkcionalnosti.
Special Report No 2/2013 – Has the Commission ensured efficient implementation of the seventh framework programme for research? 17 AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH 14. 
2/2013 – Ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje Sedmega okvirnega programa za raziskave? 17 OBSEG REVIZIJE IN REVIZIJSKI PRISTOP 14.
The audit examined whether the Commission has ensured efficient implementation of FP7. 
Z revizijo se je preverjalo, ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje 7.
This was addressed by the following three subquestions: (a) Have the rules for participation allowed efficient implementation of FP7? (b) Has the Commission succeeded in streamlining the FP7 processes without compromising the quality of spending? (c) Did the Commission manage well the setting up of new instruments? 
OP, zaradi česar so bila zastavljena naslednja tri podvprašanja: (a) Ali so pravila za udeležbo omogočala učinkovito izvajanje 7. OP? (b) Ali je Komisiji uspelo racionalizirati postopke 7. OP, ne da bi ogrozila kakovost porabe? (c) Ali je Komisija dobro upravljala vzpostavitev novih instrumentov?
The audit covered the implementation of FP7 between 2007 and the first half of 2012. 
Revizija je zajemala izvajanje 7. OP med letom 2007 in prvo polovico leta 2012.
The audit criteria and the audit evidence collection methods are described in Annex I. The audit scope encompassed: (a) for the first audit subquestion, the rules for participation for the entire FP7; (b) for the second subquestion, internal processes established within DG Research and Innovation, DG Information Society and Media, DG Enterprise and Industry and REA and which were related to collaborative projects under the Cooperation Specific Programme15. 
Revizijska merila in metode za zbiranje revizijskih dokazov so opisani v Prilogi I. Revizija je zajemala: (a) pri prvem revizijskem podvprašanju pravila za udeležbo za celoten 7. OP; (b) pri drugem podvprašanju notranje postopke, ki so bili določeni v GD za raziskave in inovacije, GD za informacijsko družbo in medije, GD za podjetništvo in industrijo ter REA in so bili povezani s projekti sodelovanja v okviru posebnega programa „Sodelovanje“.15 Tako je analiza notranjih postopkov zajemala izvajanje skoraj dveh tretjin proračuna 7.
In this way the analysis of internal processes covered the implementation of almost two thirds of the FP7 budget; and (c) for the third subquestion, an analysis of two new instruments — JTIs and the RSFF. 
OP in (c) pri tretjem podvprašanju analizo dveh novih instrumentov – skupnih tehnoloških pobud in Sklada za financiranje na osnovi delitve tveganja (RSFF).
The Court carried out a follow-up of its previous recommendations in 'Special Report No 1/2004 on the management of indirect RTD actions under the Fifth Framework Programme for research and technological development (1998 to 2002)'. 
Sodišče je preverilo upoštevanje svojih predhodnih priporočil v Posebnem poročilu št. 1/2004 o upravljanju posrednih dejavnosti RTR v sklopu Petega okvirnega programa (5.
The results including the references to the corresponding observations in this report are presented in Annex II. 
Rezultati in sklici na ustrezna opažanja v tem poročilu so predstavljeni v Prilogi II.
15 The identification of scientific topics and setting out of the work programmes was outside the scope of this audit. Special Report No 2/2013 – Has the Commission ensured efficient implementation of the seventh framework programme for research? 
15 Revizija ni vključevala opredelitve znanstvenih tem in določitve delovnih programov. Posebno poročilo št. 2/2013 – Ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje Sedmega okvirnega programa za raziskave?
18 OBSERVATIONS THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN A NUMBER OF STEPS TO SIMPLIFY THE RULES FOR PARTICIPATION, BUT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE 17. 
18 OPAŽANJA KOMISIJA JE S ŠTEVILNIMI UKREPI POENOSTAVILA PRAVILA ZA UDELEŽBO, VENDAR JE TREBA NAREDITI ŠE VEČ 17.
At the inception of FP7 the Commission put forward a series of simplification plans affecting various aspects of the rules for participation. 
OP predstavila vrsto načrtov za poenostavitev, ki so se nanašali na različne vidike pravil za udeležbo.
This part of the report uses the following principles as a basis for the assessment of the progress made in pursuing this simplification agenda: (a) rationalising requirements by striking a better balance between risks and control; (b) optimising the methods of reimbursing the beneficiaries for their research efforts; (c) guiding the beneficiaries through the complexity of the scheme; (d) aligning provisions with beneficiaries’ practices; and (e) avoiding duplications and inconsistencies. 
V tem delu poročila se kot osnova za oceno doseženega napredka pri izpolnjevanju načrta za poenostavitev uporabljajo naslednja načela: (a) racionalizacija zahtev z vzpostavitvijo boljšega ravnovesja med tveganji in nadzorom; (b) optimizacija metod za povračilo stroškov za raziskave upravičencem; (c) vodenje upravičencev po kompleksni shemi; (d) uskladitev določb s praksami upravičencev in (e) preprečevanje podvajanja in nedoslednosti.
These principles were derived from various Commission documents16 presenting plans for simplification and from the legislative authorities’ positions17 relating to the rules for participation. 
Ta načela so bila izpeljana iz različnih dokumentov Komisije16, ki prikazujejo načrte za poenostavitev, in iz stališč zakonodajnih organov17, ki se nanašajo na pravila za udeležbo.
Thus these principles have been driving the evolution of the rules for participation since 2005, when the Commission launched its preparation of FP7. 
Tako so ta načela vodila spreminjanje pravil za udeležbo od leta 2005, ko je Komisija začela s pripravo 7. OP.
For an overview of the progress in the simplification agenda refer to Table 2. 
Za pregled napredovanja programa poenostavitev glej razpredelnico 2.
17 Conclusions on simplified and more efficient programmes supporting European research and innovation, 3 016th Competitiveness Council meeting of 26 May 2010; European Parliament report on simplifying the implementation of the research framework programmes, 2010/2079 (INI). 
17 Sklepi o poenostavljenih in učinkovitejših programih v podporo evropskim raziskavam in inovacijam, 3016. zasedanje Sveta za konkurenčnost dne 26. maja 2010.
Special Report No 2/2013 – Has the Commission ensured efficient implementation of the seventh framework programme for research? TABLE 2 PROGRESS WITH THE COMMISSION’S SIMPLIFICATION AGENDA 19 Principles with examples of planned measures Court's assessment Rationalising requirements: ο Replacement of bank guarantees by the Participant Guarantee Fund ο Less use of audit certificates for payment requests ο Rationalisation of the reporting periods Satisfactory Bank guarantees are no longer required, relieving the beneficiaries of the associated administrative burden. 
2/2013 – Ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje Sedmega okvirnega programa za raziskave? NAPREDOVANJE PROGRAMA POENOSTAVITEV KOMISIJE 19 RAZPREDELNICA 2 Načela s primeri načrtovanih ukrepov Ocena Sodišča Racionalizacija zahtev: ο nadomestitev bančnih jamstev z Jamstvenim skladom za udeležence, ο manjša uporaba revizijskih potrdil pri zahtevkih za plačilo, ο racionalizacija obdobij poročanja.
As a result of the introduction of a threshold, only 6 % of cost claims, representing a third of funded costs in FP7, require an audit certificate. 
Zaradi uvedbe mejne vrednosti je revizijsko potrdilo potrebno pri samo 6 % zahtevkov za povračilo stroškov, ki predstavljajo tretjino financiranih stroškov v 7. OP.
In some aspects (e.g. length of reporting periods) FP7 compares favourably with national funding schemes. 
V nekaterih pogledih (npr. trajanje obdobij poročanja) je 7. OP primerljiv z nacionalnimi shemami financiranja.
However, further rationalisation of reporting requirements is possible, if: ο reporting periods are also extended for projects under the ICT theme; and ο the size of the reports is subject to strict limits, as in some national funding agencies (SNF, DFG, TSB). 
Vendar pa je možna dodatna racionalizacija zahtev glede poročanja, če: ο bi se podaljšala tudi obdobja poročanja za projekte pod temo IKT in ο bi bil obseg poročil strogo omejen, kot v nekaterih nacionalnih agencijah za financiranje (SNF, DFG, TSB).
The FP7 funding model based on actual costs remains complex (see paragraph 20). 
OP, ki temelji na dejanskih stroških, je še vedno zapleten (glej odstavek 20).
Guiding the beneficiaries through the complexity of the scheme: ο Improvement of guidance materials ο Common electronic tools for interaction with beneficiaries ο Additional guidance tools such as help desks Satisfactory The guidance documents have become shorter and clearer compared to those of FP6, as confirmed by the beneficiaries’ responses to the Court’s survey. 
Vodenje upravičencev po kompleksni shemi: ο izboljšanje gradiva z navodili, ο skupna elektronska orodja za interakcijo z upravičenci, ο dodatna orodja za usmerjanje, kot so službe za pomoč upravičencem. Zadovoljivo. Smernice so postale krajše in jasnejše v primerjavi s tistimi za 6.
New IT tools facilitate interaction between the Commission and beneficiaries. 
Nova IT orodja olajšujejo interakcijo med Komisijo in upravičenci.
Specialised help desks for beneficiaries have been introduced. 
Uvedene so bile specializirane službe za pomoč upravičencem.
Avoiding duplications and inconsistencies: ο An electronic registration desk for beneficiaries (unique registration facility) ο Consistent assessment of financial viability ο Single clearing house (research enquiry service) ο Research Clearing Committee Not satisfactory Most of the planned measures were introduced, but implementation is still characterised by inconsistencies (see paragraphs 30 to 44). 
OP, ki pa ne odražajo vedno splošne prakse na področju raziskav (glej odstavke 21 do 29). Preprečevanje podvajanja in nedoslednosti: ο mesto za elektronsko prijavo upravičencev (centralni sistem prijave), ο dosledno ocenjevanje finančne sposobnosti, ο en sam center za izmenjavo informacij (Raziskovalno‐informacijska služba), ο Odbor za raziskovalna vprašanja.
Special Report No 2/2013 – Has the Commission ensured efficient implementation of the seventh framework programme for research? 20 GOOD PROGRESS WITH THE SIMPLIFICATION AGENDA 19. 
2/2013 – Ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje Sedmega okvirnega programa za raziskave? 20 DOBRO NAPREDOVANJE PROGRAMA POENOSTAVITEV 19.
With regard to the five principles, the Commission has rationalised the requirements and improved the various guidance documents in a satisfactory manner. 
Komisija je v zvezi s petimi načeli zadovoljivo racionalizirala zahteve in izboljšala različne smernice.
The Commission has been able to align FP7 provisions with beneficiaries’ practices in some cases (for example to accept average personnel costs) but more needs to be done in the future. 
V nekaterih primerih ji je uspelo uskladiti določbe s praksami upravičencev (na primer sprejetje povprečnih stroškov osebja), vendar mora v prihodnosti storiti več.
FP7 beneficiaries are faced with inconsistencies related to some aspects of the rules for participation (see paragraphs 21 and 30 respectively). 
OP se pri nekaterih elementih pravil za udeležbo spoprijemajo z nedoslednostmi (glej odstavka 21 in 30).
As regards the funding model new modalities for funding based on flat rates instead of actual costs were introduced. 
Pri modelu financiranja so bili uvedeni novi načini financiranja, ki temeljijo na pavšalnih zneskih in ne na dejanskih stroških.
The financing based on actual costs remains the main funding model in FP7. 
Financiranje, ki temelji na dejanskih stroških, je še vedno glavni model financiranja v 7.
Compared to national funding agencies, the FP7 funding model is complex on account of the high number of combinations of cost categories, methods for calculating costs and reimbursement rates. 
OP je v primerjavi z modelom nacionalnih agencij za financiranje zapleten zaradi velikega števila kombinacij stroškovnih kategorij, metod za izračun stroškov in stopenj povračil.
This is a burden for the beneficiaries and has a number of important consequences for the administrative processes in the Commission. 
To predstavlja breme za upravičence in ima več pomembnih posledic za upravne postopke v Komisiji.
The Court recommended the simplification of the funding model in its Report 1/2004 (see Annex II). 
Sodišče je v svojem poročilu št. 1/2004 priporočilo poenostavitev modela financiranja (glej Prilogo II).
Simplification of the funding model is an important element of the proposal for the rules for participation in Horizon 202018. 
Poenostavitev modela financiranja je pomemben element predloga za pravila za udeležbo v Obzorju 2020.18 CILJ IZBOLJŠANJA USKLADITVE DOLOČB 7.
At the inception of FP7, the Commission indicated that the funding model based on actual costs would make use of the participants’ usual accounting and management principles19. 
OP navedla, da bo model financiranja, ki temelji na dejanskih stroških, uporabljal običajna računovodska načela in načela upravljanja, ki jih uporabljajo upravičenci.19 Zakonodajni organi in Komisija sama so nedavno poudarili, da je treba poskrbeti, da bodo pravila 7.
The legislative authorities and the Commission itself have recently underlined the need to make FP7 rules more compatible with general business practices20. BETTER ALIGNMENT WITH BENEFICIARIES’ PRACTICES IS REQUIRED 22. 
OP bolj združljiva s splošnimi poslovnimi praksami.20 POTREBNA JE BOLJŠA USKLAJENOST S PRAKSAMI UPRAVIČENCEV 22. Za izboljšanje usklajenosti pravil 7.
To improve alignment of FP7 rules for participation with beneficiaries’ practices, the rules should provide for a mechanism to recognise these practices in good time and adjust interpretations and practices accordingly, provided this does not compromise the general and control objectives of FP7. 
OP za udeležbo s praksami upravičencev bi ta pravila morala določati mehanizem, ki bi pravočasno prepoznal te prakse in ustrezno prilagodil razlage in prakse Komisije, če to ne bi ogrozilo splošnih ciljev in ciljev glede nadzora 7. OP.
18 ‘ The Court considers that the radically simplified cost-funding model will improve the reliability of the model, decrease the risk of irregularities in beneficiaries’ cost claims, make project accounting less complex, and eliminate some of the verification steps required under the current FP7 funding model, thereby facilitating and accelerating the application process.’ 
18 „Sodišče meni, da bo radikalno poenostavljen model financiranja stroškov povečal zanesljivost modela, zmanjšal tveganje nepravilnosti pri zahtevkih upravičencev za povračilo stroškov, poenostavil računovodenje za projekte ter odpravil nekatere ukrepe preverjanja, ki se zahtevajo v okviru sedanjega modela financiranja sedmega okvirnega programa, s tem pa olajšal in pospešil postopek prijave.“ Za podrobnejše informacije glej Mnenje Sodišča št.
19 SEC(2005) 431 final, section 2.5. 
19 SEC(2005) 431 final, oddelek 2.5.
20 E.g. paragraph 117 of 2007 European Parliament general budget discharge, 2008/2186(DEC); COM(2010) 187 final; European Parliament report on simplifying the implementation of the research framework programmes (2010/2079(INI)); Conclusions on simplified and more efficient programmes supporting European research and innovation, 3 016 th Competitiveness Council meeting of 26 May 2010. Special Report No 2/2013 – Has the Commission ensured efficient implementation of the seventh framework programme for research? 
20 Npr. odstavek 117 razrešnice Evropskega parlamenta glede splošnega proračuna 2007, 2008/2186(DEC); COM(2010) 187 final; poročilo Evropskega parlamenta o poenostavitvi izvajanja raziskovalnih okvirnih programov (2010/2079(INI)); sklepi o poenostavljenih in učinkovitejših programih v podporo evropskim raziskavam in inovacijam, 3016. zasedanje Sveta za konkurenčnost dne 26. maja 2010. Posebno poročilo št. 2/2013 – Ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje Sedmega okvirnega programa za raziskave?
At the beginning of FP7 the Commission established a certification mechanism for the approval of cost methodologies to give assurance to beneficiaries on their methodologies. However, the stringent requirements have led to a low take-up of the certification scheme by the beneficiaries. 
OP vzpostavila mehanizem potrjevanja za odobritev metodologij za stroške, da bi upravičenci dobili zagotovilo za svoje metodologije, vendar se je shema potrjevanja zaradi strogih zahtev med upravičenci slabo uveljavila.
The Commission has estimated that a maximum of 350 certificates would be issued21. 
Komisija je ocenila, da bo izdanih največ 350 potrdil.21 Do marca 2012 je sprejela prošnje za potrditev metodologij od 71 upravičencev, kar je 20 % upravičencev 7.
The results of the Court’s survey indicate that the major reasons for not applying for ex ante certification are the length and complexity of the application process, the difficulty of meeting the certification criteria and the limited use of the certificate. 
Rezultati ankete Sodišča kažejo, da so glavni razlogi za to, da niso bile vložene prošnje za predhodno potrjevanje, dolgotrajen in zapleten postopek obravnave prošnje, težavno izpolnjevanje meril za potrjevanje in omejena uporaba potrdila.
The low participation undermined the Commission’s efforts to simplify procedures22. 24. 
Nizka udeležba je spodkopala prizadevanja Komisije za poenostavitev postopkov.22 24.
To facilitate the alignment of FP7 provisions with beneficiaries’ practices related to personnel costs, in 2011 the Commission introduced the possibility for them to use their internal practices for charging average personnel costs under certain conditions. 
Za lažje usklajevanje določb 7. OP s praksami upravičencev v zvezi s stroški za zaposlene je Komisija leta 2011 uvedla možnost, da upravičenci za zaračunavanje povprečnih stroškov za zaposlene pod določenimi pogoji uporabljajo svoje notranje prakse.
The ECA’s interviews with research organisations and participants revealed a positive reaction to the wider acceptance of the average personnel cost methodologies. 
Razgovori Evropskega računskega sodišča z raziskovalnimi organizacijami in udeleženci so razkrili pozitiven odziv na širše sprejemanje metodologij povprečnih stroškov za zaposlene.
However, even though the problem with the acceptance of the average personnel costs was recognised relatively early23, it took 21 months before the rules were modified. 
Vendar pa je bilo za spremembo pravil potrebnih kar 21 mesecev, kljub temu da je bila težava s sprejemanjem povprečnih stroškov za zaposlene ugotovljena razmeroma zgodaj.23.
This is late for a 7-year programme that finances projects lasting on average 36 months. 
To je veliko za sedemletni program, v okviru katerega se financirajo projekti, ki povprečno trajajo 36 mesecev.
Even if the FP7 financial rules are less prescriptive and more principles-based, there are situations where it is difficult to reconcile the reality faced by a beneficiary with FP7 principles. 
Čeprav so finančna pravila 7. OP manj stroga in bolj temeljijo na načelih, se dogaja, da je dejanske razmere, v katerih se znajde upravičenec, težko uskladiti z načeli 7.