natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since 2013, the Commission services have been informing the Member State authorities on a regular basis about the potential benefits of using ARACHNE. 
Od leta 2013 službe Komisije organe držav članic redno obveščajo o morebitnih koristih uporabe orodja ARACHNE.
The Commission is investigating whether the data from the EDES system (and potentially ABAC) can be integrated into ARACHNE, also with a view to allowing direct management spending to be tested for the presence of fraud indicators. 
Komisija preučuje, ali je mogoče podatke iz sistema za zgodnje odkrivanje in izključitev (in morebiti iz računovodskega sistema na podlagi nastanka poslovnega dogodka (ABAC)) vključiti v orodje ARACHNE, da bi se med drugim lahko preveril obstoj kazalnikov goljufij pri porabi v okviru neposrednega upravljanja.
The development of ARACHNE was completed in May 2013 (first installation) and the data from the Member States who decided to integrate ARACHNE in their anti-fraud strategy have since then been gradually included. 
Razvoj orodja ARACHNE je bil končan maja 2013 (prva namestitev) in od takrat se vanj postopoma vnašajo podatki držav članic, ki so se odločile, da orodje ARACHNE vključijo v svojo strategijo za boj proti goljufijam.
EDES applies to all aspects of direct and also indirect management, since the entry into application of the new Financial Regulation. 
Sistem za zgodnje odkrivanje in izključitev se od začetka uporabe nove finančne uredbe uporablja za vse vidike neposrednega in tudi posrednega upravljanja.
The new EDES system was put in place in 2016 and thus the ECA’s findings are based on public figures only relating to the initial period up to 30 June 2018. 
Ker je bil novi sistem za zgodnje odkrivanje in izključitev vzpostavljen leta 2016, ugotovitve Evropskega računskega sodišča temeljijo na javno dostopnih podatkih, ki se nanašajo samo na začetno obdobje do 30. junija 2018.
This does not allow for an assessment of the functioning of the system, including of its deterrent effects. 
Tako ni mogoče oceniti delovanja sistema, niti njegovih odvračilnih učinkov.
The Commission notes the following additional and important aspects for assessing the impact of OLAF's administrative investigations:  an in-depth analysis of administrative recommendations to address systemic shortcomings;  precautionary measures issued by OLAF in the course of an investigation pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation 883/2013 to avoid further aggravation of fraud or irregularities;  the deterrent effect of OLAF investigations on potential fraudsters;  the responsibilities for Commission services and Member States (reporting to OLAF and implementing its recommendations) to render OLAF's work effective in practice. 
Komisija opozarja na naslednje dodatne in pomembne vidike za oceno učinka upravnih preiskav urada OLAF:  poglobljeno analizo upravnih priporočil, da se obravnavajo sistemske pomanjkljivosti;  varnostne ukrepe, ki jih urad OLAF med preiskavo sprejme v skladu s členom 7 Uredbe št. 883/2013, da se prepreči nadaljnje poslabšanje goljufij ali nepravilnosti;  odvračilni učinek preiskav urada OLAF na potencialne goljufe;  odgovornosti služb Komisije in držav članic (pri poročanju uradu OLAF in izvajanju njegovih priporočil), da zagotovijo učinkovitost delovanja urada OLAF v praksi.
Furthermore the Commission and/or OLAF have initiated a number of key reforms to increase the effectiveness of OLAF's investigative activities . 
Poleg tega sta bila Komisija in/ali urad OLAF pobudnika številnih ključnih reform za povečanje učinkovitosti preiskovalnih dejavnosti urada OLAF.
These reforms include:  OLAF instructions to investigators on financial recommendations (2016);  OLAF's review of its monitoring regime for recommendations to ensure quicker follow-up (2017);  the PIF Directive (2017);  the revision of the Financial Regulation (2018);  the proposal to amend Regulation 883/2013 to improve, inter alia, the investigative tools to OLAF and facilitate the uptake of OLAF's final reports (2018). 
Te reforme vključujejo:  navodila urada OLAF preiskovalcem v zvezi s finančnimi priporočili (2016);  pregled urada OLAF v zvezi z njegovo ureditvijo spremljanja priporočil za zagotovitev hitrejšega nadaljnjega ukrepanja (2017);  direktivo o zaščiti finančnih interesov (2017);  revizijo finančne uredbe (2018);  predlog za spremembo Uredbe št. 883/2013, da se med drugim izboljšajo preiskovalna orodja urada OLAF in olajša sprejemanje končnih poročil urada OLAF (2018).
OLAF's judicial recommendations may also contain general proposals to the judiciary to consider OLAF's findings in the final report in their entirety which widens the scope of judicial action. 
Sodna priporočila urada OLAF lahko vsebujejo tudi splošne predloge sodnim organom, da v celoti upoštevajo njegove ugotovitve v končnem poročilu, s čimer se širi obseg sodnih ukrepov.
In line with Article 11(1) of the OLAF Regulation, OLAF's recommendations indicate the action to be taken by the IBOA and the competent authorities of the Member States. 
V skladu s členom 11(1) uredbe o uradu OLAF so v priporočilih urada OLAF navedeni ukrepi, ki jih morajo sprejeti institucije, organi, uradi ali agencije in pristojni organi držav članic.
Pursuant to Article 11(2), OLAF's final reports constitute admissible evidence in administrative or judicial proceedings in Member States in the same way and under the same conditions as administrative reports drawn up by national administrative inspectors. 
V skladu s členom 11(2) so končna poročila urada OLAF dopustni dokazi v upravnih ali sodnih postopkih v državah članicah enako in pod istimi pogoji kot upravna poročila, ki jih pripravijo nacionalni upravni inšpektorji.
In order to further improve the impact of OLAF's investigations, the Commission has in its proposal for amending Regulation 883/2013 introduced measures to strengthen the usability of OLAF's final reports in national proceedings. 
Da bi se še izboljšal učinek preiskav urada OLAF, je Komisija v predlogu za spremembo Uredbe št. 883/2013 predstavila ukrepe za povečanje uporabnosti končnih poročil urada OLAF v nacionalnih postopkih.
The follow-up given by national authorities to OLAF’s judicial recommendations is a long-standing challenge, well-known to OLAF and the Commission. 
Nadaljnje ukrepanje nacionalnih organov na podlagi sodnih priporočil urada OLAF že dolgo predstavlja izziv, ki je uradu OLAF, Komisiji in državam članicam dobro poznan.
As explained below, this is due to a number of factors, e.g. the fact that each Member State has its own prosecution policy with regards to PIF offences. 16 
Kot je pojasnjeno v nadaljevanju, na to vpliva več dejavnikov, na primer dejstvo, da ima vsaka država članica svojo politiko pregona, kar zadeva kazniva dejanja na področju zaščite finančnih interesov.
It is expected to bring a more consistent and effective prosecution policy in EPPO Member States for crimes affecting the EU budget, leading to more prosecutions, convictions and a higher level of recovery. 
Pričakuje se, da bo to omogočilo bolj usklajeno in učinkovito politiko pregona v državah članicah, ki sodelujejo v EJT, za kazniva dejanja, ki škodijo proračunu EU, kar bo pripeljalo do večjega števila pregonov in obsodb ter višjo stopnjo izterjave.
Moreover, differences in the scope and definition of criminal offences have been further addressed by Directive (EU) 1371/2017 (the "PIF Directive") (see also reply to paragraph 97). 
Poleg tega so bile razlike v obsegu in opredelitvi kaznivih dejanj nadalje obravnavane z Direktivo (EU) št. 1371/2017 (direktiva o zaščiti finančnih interesov) (glej tudi odgovor na odstavek 97).
The recent proposal to amend Regulation 883/2013 aims inter alia to enhance the effectiveness of OLAF's investigative function, and it is therefore expected that the use of OLAF investigation results in judicial proceedings in Member States will be improved. 
Namen nedavnega predloga za spremembo Uredbe št.883/2013 je med drugim izboljšati učinkovitost preiskovalne funkcije urada OLAF, zato se pričakuje, da se bo uporaba rezultatov preiskav urada OLAF v sodnih postopkih v državah članicah izboljšala.
To better understand the precise reasons for dismissals and to improve the follow-up of its investigations, OLAF has undertaken an in-depth analysis of Member States’ follow-up to its judicial recommendations issued between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2015, examining 169 judicial recommendations issued by OLAF and dismissed by Member States’ judicial authorities, out of a total of 317 recommendations. 
Da bi urad OLAF bolje razumel natančne razloge za zavrnitve in izboljšal nadaljnje ukrepanje na podlagi svojih preiskav, se je lotil poglobljene analize nadaljnjega ukrepanja držav članic na podlagi njegovih sodnih priporočil, izdanih med 1. januarjem 2008 in 31. decembrom 2015, pri čemer je bilo od skupno 317 priporočil preučenih 169 sodnih priporočil, ki jih je izdal urad OLAF in so jih pravosodni organi držav članic zavrnili.
OLAF is in constant dialogue with Member States’ judicial authorities to improve the indictment rate. 
Urad OLAF vzdržuje stalen dialog s pravosodnimi organi držav članic, da bi se izboljšala stopnja vložitve obtožnic.
As regards the comparison between numbers of indictments resulting from OLAF's judicial recommendations and numbers of national own prosecutions, the different context and conditions under which OLAF operates as compared to national authorities need to be considered. . 
Kar zadeva primerjavo med številom obtožnic, vloženih na podlagi sodnih priporočil urada OLAF, in številom lastnih nacionalnih pregonov, je treba upoštevati različne okoliščine in pogoje, v katerih deluje urad OLAF v primerjavi z nacionalnimi organi.
The responsibility to counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union is incumbent on the Union and on the Member States8 as a shared responsibility. 
Odgovornost za boj proti goljufijam in vsem drugim nezakonitim dejavnostim, ki škodujejo finančnim interesom Unije, nosijo Unija in države članice8 kot deljeno odgovornost.
This is also illustrated by the figures published by the Commission on an annual basis in its reports on the protection of the European Union's financial interests (PIF Reports)9. 
To je razvidno tudi iz podatkov, ki jih Komisija vsako leto objavi v svojih poročilih o zaščiti finančnih interesov Evropske unije9.
Action at EU and national level is complementary and the fact that the EU level is equipped with its own investigative capacity is a crucial building block in the fight against fraud as a whole. 
Ukrepi na ravni EU in nacionalni ravni se dopolnjujejo, dejstvo, da ima raven EU svoje preiskovalne zmogljivosti, pa je ključni gradnik boja proti goljufijam kot celote.
Both levels benefit from close cooperation. 
Obe ravni imata koristi od tesnega sodelovanja.
In addition, even when not leading the investigation, OLAF often forwards information and provides assistance to the competent authorities in the Member States and, especially in the context of coordination cases, contributes to investigations carried out by national authorities. 
Poleg tega urad OLAF, tudi kadar ne vodi preiskave, pogosto posreduje informacije in zagotavlja pomoč pristojnim organom v državah članicah ter zlasti v okviru primerov usklajevanja prispeva k preiskavam, ki jih izvajajo nacionalni organi.
This would have facilitated the assessment of whether OLAF's recommendations have an appropriate impact at national level. 
To bi olajšalo oceno, ali imajo priporočila urada OLAF ustrezen učinek na nacionalni ravni.
8 9 Cf. Article 325 TFEU. 
8 9 Glej člen 325 PDEU.
For the latest version, see Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, 'Protection of the European Union's financial interests – Fight against fraud 2017 Annual Report', Brussels, 03.09.2018, COM(2018) 553 final. 
Za najnovejšo različico glej Poročilo Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu, „29. letno poročilo o zaščiti finančnih interesov Evropske unije in boju proti goljufijam (2017)“, Bruselj, 3.9.2018, COM(2018) 553 final.
A similar tendency is reflected by other systems relying on complementarity of investigations at EU and national level (e.g. enforcement of EU competition rules, see http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/statistics.html). 17 
Podobna težnja se kaže tudi v drugih sistemih, ki temeljijo na dopolnjevanju med preiskavami na ravni EU in nacionalni ravni (npr.izvajanje pravil konkurence EU, glej http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/statistics.html). 17
This analysis was not limited to the expenditure area – the subject of the ECA’s audit – but included also internal investigations and the revenue area, i.e. customs investigations. 
Ta analiza ni bila omejena na področje izdatkov – ki so predmet revizije Evropskega računskega sodišča –, temveč je vključevala tudi notranje preiskave in področje prihodkov, tj. carinske preiskave.
First bullet point: According to the OLAF's analysis of Member States’ follow-up of OLAF’s judicial recommendations, the category of cases with “insufficient evidence” encompasses a wide range of heterogeneous factual and legal situations. 
Prva točka: Glede na analizo urada OLAF v zvezi z nadaljnjim ukrepanjem držav članic na podlagi njegovih sodnih priporočil kategorija primerov z „nezadostnimi dokazi“ vključuje najrazličnejše dejanske in pravne položaje.
It includes, in particular, cases where a full collection of evidence was in practice not feasible for OLAF because of the limitations of its investigative powers as well as situations where Member States' authorities questioned the evidentiary value of OLAF's final report due to the uncertainty of the applicable legislation. 
Vanjo spadajo zlasti primeri, v katerih urad OLAF zaradi omejenih preiskovalnih pooblastil v praksi ni mogel zbrati vseh dokazov, in položaji, v katerih so organi držav članic zaradi negotovosti glede zakonodaje, ki se uporablja, dvomili o dokazni vrednosti končnega poročila urada OLAF.
In addition, the number of cases dismissed due to “insufficient evidence” (a common explanation for not opening a case) may also vary according to the different procedural rules and practices in the Member States. 
Poleg tega se število primerov, zavrnjenih zaradi „nezadostnih dokazov“ (pogost razlog za neuvedbo preiskave), lahko razlikuje tudi glede na različna procesna pravila in prakse v državah članicah.
In general, the Member States have a wide margin of appreciation at the various stages of investigation and prosecution. 
Države članice imajo na splošno široko polje proste presoje v različnih fazah preiskave in pregona.
It should also be emphasised that in a significant number of cases, OLAF does not receive the detailed reasoning on the actual grounds for dismissal. 
Poudariti je treba tudi, da v precejšnjem številu primerov urad OLAF ne prejme podrobne obrazložitve dejanskih razlogov za zavrnitev.
Second bullet point: Despite the degree of harmonisation achieved under the PIF Convention (and pending the transposition of the PIF Directive), there are still notable differences in national criminal laws at a detailed level which may affect the question of whether a certain conduct is considered an offence at Member State level. 
Druga točka: Kljub doseženi stopnji usklajenosti na podlagi konvencije o zaščiti finančnih interesov (in do prenosa direktive o zaščiti finančnih interesov) na ravni podrobnosti še vedno obstajajo opazne razlike v nacionalnih kazenskih zakonodajah, ki lahko vplivajo na to, ali se določeno ravnanje na ravni države članice šteje za kaznivo dejanje.
OLAF always conducts a first assessment considering whether the facts under investigation fall under the definition of EU fraud according to the applicable EU legislation. 
Urad OLAF vedno izvede prvo oceno s preučitvijo, ali preiskovana dejanja spadajo v opredelitev pojma goljufija v EU v skladu z zakonodajo EU, ki se uporablja.
It is then the competence of national authorities to decide whether to follow-up OLAF's recommendations or not. 
Nato je v pristojnosti nacionalnih organov, da odločijo, ali bodo nadalje ukrepali na podlagi priporočil urada OLAF ali ne.
Third bullet point: While time barring can in principle be regarded as an "objective" reason, the qualification of a certain set of facts as a crime falls under the sole competence of judicial authorities, which enjoy a considerable margin of assessment in this regard. 
Tretja točka: Čeprav je zastaranje načeloma mogoče šteti za „objektiven“ razlog, so za opredelitev določenega skupka dejanj kot kaznivega dejanja pristojni izključno pravosodni organi, ki imajo v zvezi s tem precejšnje možnosti proste presoje.
Whether a case is considered time-barred may for instance depend on the degree of gravity attributed to a given offence which may have a significant impact on the prescription period applicable. 
Ali je primer zastaral, je lahko odvisno na primer od teže, ki se pripisuje določenemu kaznivemu dejanju, kar lahko pomembno vpliva na zastaralni rok, ki se uporabi.
Also the assessment of e.g. the question when an offence was started and when it ended, whether there was a continuous or repeated conduct, as well as questions of interruption and suspension involve complex assessments based on specificities of national legal frameworks. 
Tudi na primer ocena, kdaj se je kaznivo dejanje začelo in kdaj se je končalo ter ali je šlo za stalno ali ponavljajoče se ravnanje, ter vprašanja pretrganja in prekinitve vključujejo zapletene ocene, ki temeljijo na posebnostih nacionalnih pravnih okvirov.
In many cases, OLAF is able to check this with national authorities and may focus on enabling financial recovery. 
V številnih primerih lahko urad OLAF to preveri pri nacionalnih organih in se morda osredotoči na zagotovitev finančne izterjave.
It should be noted that avoiding time barring is the joint responsibility of all actors, in particular EU institutions and Member States who should provide information to OLAF in a timely manner. 
Opozoriti je treba, da so za preprečitev zastaranja skupaj odgovorni vsi akterji, zlasti institucije EU in države članice, ki morajo uradu OLAF pravočasno zagotoviti informacije.
See also Commission's reply to paragraph 97. 
Glej tudi odgovor Komisije na odstavek 97.
OLAF cooperates closely and constructively with many national authorities. 
Urad OLAF tesno in konstruktivno sodeluje s številnimi nacionalnimi organi.
This applies during the investigative phase (coordination of investigative activities, exchange of information, assistance to get access to bank accounts, etc.) as well as in the subsequent phase (implementation of OLAF's recommendations by national authorities). 
To velja za preiskovalno fazo (usklajevanje preiskovalnih dejavnosti, izmenjava informacij, pomoč pri pridobivanju dostopa do bančnih računov itd.) in tudi za poznejšo fazo (izvajanje priporočil urada OLAF s strani nacionalnih organov).
Where differences appear between OLAF and national authorities regarding the interpretation of the law or the facts, a meeting can be organised. 
Kadar se med uradom OLAF in nacionalnimi organi pojavijo razlike pri razlagi prava ali dejstev, se lahko organizira sestanek.
The Commission underlines that Member States' judiciaries are and should be independent from OLAF. 
Komisija poudarja, da so sodni organi držav članic neodvisni oziroma bi morali biti neodvisni od urada OLAF.
The national authorities may therefore reach different conclusions than the ones drawn by OLAF. 
Nacionalni organi tako lahko pridejo do drugačnih ugotovitev kot urad OLAF.
The challenge arising from the significant differences among Member States in the scope and definition of criminal offences as well as in statutes of limitation has been specifically addressed by the new PIF Directive (EU) 1371/2017 (in particular Articles 3 and 4). 
Izziv, ki ga predstavljajo precejšnje razlike med državami članicami pri obsegu in opredelitvi kaznivih dejanj ter pri zastaralnih rokih, je izrecno obravnavan z novo direktivo o zaščiti finančnih interesov 18 (EU) št.
Member States have to transpose the PIF Directive by July 2019. 
Države članice morajo direktivo o zaščiti finančnih interesov prenesti do julija 2019.
In addition, the PIF Directive includes for the first time specific rules on limitation periods for PIF offences (Article 12). 
Poleg tega direktiva o zaščiti finančnih interesov prvič vključuje posebna pravila o zastaralnih rokih za kazniva dejanja na področju zaščite finančnih interesov (člen 12).
The Commission's proposal 18 
S predlogom Komisije za spremembo Uredbe št.
to amend Regulation 883/2013 addresses inter alia the need for clarification of the legal framework for OLAF's investigation measures. 
883/2013 se med drugim obravnava potreba po razjasnitvi pravnega okvira za preiskovalne ukrepe urada OLAF.
The cooperation between OLAF and national prosecutors is well established and – in general – functioning well. 
Sodelovanje med uradom OLAF in državnimi tožilci je dobro vzpostavljeno ter – na splošno – dobro deluje.
OLAF investigations often complement the national investigations by covering aspects going beyond the national case. 
Preiskave urada OLAF pogosto dopolnjujejo nacionalne preiskave, saj vključujejo vidike, ki presegajo okvire nacionalne zadeve.
Close coordination between national authorities and OLAF is considered as good practice in OLAF and often takes place to avoid duplication of efforts and limit risks for the respective investigative activities. 
Tesno sodelovanje med nacionalnimi organi in uradom OLAF se v uradu OLAF šteje za dobro prakso ter je pogosto vzpostavljeno, da se prepreči podvajanje dela in omejijo tveganja za posamezne preiskovalne dejavnosti.
The Commission emphasises the fact that, on the basis of Article 12 of Regulation 883/2013, OLAF often informs the public prosecutors' offices before the conclusion of the investigation. 
Komisija poudarja, da urad OLAF na podlagi člena 12 Uredbe št. 883/2013 pred koncem preiskave pogosto obvesti državna tožilstva.
The Commission notes that the dismissal of cases by national judicial authorities is not necessarily due to weaknesses in the cooperation between OLAF and the national authorities although there is room for improvement (see also Commission’s replies to paragraphs 97 and 98). 
Komisija opozarja, da zavrnitev primerov s strani nacionalnih pravosodnih organov ni nujno posledica pomanjkljivega sodelovanja med uradom OLAF in nacionalnimi organi, čeprav obstajajo možnosti za izboljšave (glej tudi odgovore Komisije na odstavka 97 in 98).
Important reasons why facts, for example, may be time-barred would be that OLAF received the initial information too late or that the recipient of the judicial recommendation did not act on it in an efficient manner. 
Pomembna razloga za to, da dejanja na primer zastarajo, sta, da je urad OLAF prejel začetne informacije prepozno ali da se prejemnik sodnega priporočila nanj ni učinkovito odzval.
The Commission would like to underline the complexity of the matter. 
Komisija želi poudariti kompleksnost tega vprašanja.
In fact, the investigative powers of an administrative office are not comparable to those attributed to investigative bodies working for the national public prosecutor's offices. 
Preiskovalna pooblastila upravnega urada niso primerljiva s preiskovalnimi pooblastili preiskovalnih organov, ki delajo za državna tožilstva.
It may therefore happen that, despite great investigative efforts deployed by OLAF, its limited investigation powers and practical possibilities do not allow collecting clear evidence of a criminal offence. 
Zato se lahko zgodi, da kljub preiskovalnim prizadevanjem urada OLAF njegova omejena preiskovalna pooblastila in praktične možnosti ne omogočajo zbiranja jasnih dokazov o kaznivem dejanju.
Therefore, important elements of evidence of a fraud, such as the payment of bribes, the individual responsibilities of the persons concerned, or the mens rea, may not be obtained. 
Tako morda ni mogoče pridobiti pomembnih dokazov o goljufiji, kot so plačilo podkupnin, individualne odgovornosti zadevnih oseb ali mens rea.