natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This issue will be addressed in the context of the common approach for the evaluation and selection process under CEF 2. 
To vprašanje bo obravnavano v okviru skupnega pristopa za postopek ocenjevanja in izbire v okviru IPE2.
Box 2 - Example of a project rejected by the experts and INEA but selected by the CEF selection committee The Action is being implemented in one Member State and will bring about significant benefits there but it is true that the network impact will only fully materialise with electrification in the neighbouring Member State. 
Okvir 2 – Primer projekta, ki so ga strokovnjaki in agencija INEA zavrnili, izbirni odbor IPE pa izbral Ukrep se izvaja v eni državi članici in bo prinesel znatne koristi tam, vendar je res, da se bo učinek na omrežje v celoti uresničil le z elektrifikacijo v sosednji državi članici.
There are local political efforts to advance the electrification in the neighbouring Member State. 
Lokalna politična prizadevanja so usmerjena v spodbujanje elektrifikacije v sosednji državi članici.
The Commission reiterates that the regular monitoring of the project by INEA shows a timely and effective implementation. 
Komisija ponavlja, da redno spremljanje projekta s strani agencije INEA kaže na pravočasno in učinkovito izvajanje.
Next to the scoring, the Commission also places particular importance on the qualitative assessment of each criterion by the experts. 
Komisija poleg točkovanja pripisuje poseben pomen kvalitativni oceni vsakega merila s strani strokovnjakov.
The scores attempt to express a very complex situation described in the text by a single value, while the text provides more arguments and nuances. 
Namen točk je izraziti zelo zapleten položaj, opisan v besedilu, z eno samo vrednostjo, medtem ko besedilo vsebuje več argumentov in nians.
The Commission underlines that discrepancies and inconsistencies in the scoring of award criteria may occur for reasons other than differences in the understanding of the evaluation criteria, such as those, related to the characteristics and the experience of the experts. 3 
Komisija poudarja, da se razlike in nedoslednosti pri točkovanju na podlagi meril za dodelitev lahko pojavijo zaradi razlogov, ki niso povezani z razlikami v razumevanju meril za ocenjevanje, kot so tista, povezana z značilnostmi in izkušnjami strokovnjakov. 3
EN EN Guidance for experts on the interpretation of award criteria is made available, in writing or orally, to all CEF sectors. 
SL SL Smernice za strokovnjake za razlago meril za dodelitev so v pisni ali ustni obliki na voljo vsem sektorjem IPE.
While indeed challenging, the Commission considers that the assessment of project maturity is possible as the implementation of the project over time may be adapted to any issues (extensions, re-scoping, de-scoping, termination). 
Komisija meni, da je ocena zrelosti projekta možna kljub temu, da res predstavlja velik izziv, saj se lahko izvajanje projekta sčasoma prilagodi morebitnim težavam (razširitve, ponovna določitev obsega, zmanjšanje obsega, odpoved).
The specific work programmes and call texts explain what kind of proposals are expected (studies, works, mixed) and by when the projects need to start. 
V specifičnih delovnih programih in besedilih razpisov je pojasnjeno, kateri predlogi se pričakujejo (študije, dela, mešano) in do kdaj se morajo projekti začeti.
The reality of infrastructure is highly complex with different phases running in parallel. 
Infrastrukturna stvarnost je zelo kompleksna in vzporedno potekajo različne faze.
In more and more cases, beneficiaries tender on a “design and build” basis which comprises studies and works under a single contract. 
V vedno več primerih upravičenci objavijo ponudbo na podlagi pristopa „načrta in izgradnje“, ki zajema študije in dela v okviru ene same pogodbe.
The Commission considers that for the transport sector, the change from priority projects to a core/comprehensive network approach makes a comparison not pertinent. 
Komisija meni, da je primerjava za prometni sektor zaradi spremembe od prednostnih projektov do osrednjega/celovitega mrežnega pristopa neustrezna.
Having said this, the Commission is highly committed to increasing the absorption rate of 74% stated in the previous paragraph and INEA applies a very active portfolio management in view of maximising the absorption rate of CEF. 
Ob tem je močno zavezana, da bo povečala stopnjo črpanja 74 %, navedeno v prejšnjem odstavku, in agencija INEA uporablja zelo aktivno upravljanje portfelja, da bi dosegla kar največjo stopnjo črpanja sredstev IPE.
For CEF-T, following INEA ́s constant review of the project portfolio and resulting amendments to grant agreements of certain delayed projects, in application of the ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ principle, reflow calls are being prepared for 2019 and 2020. 
V primeru IPE-promet se po stalnem pregledovanju projektnega portfelja s strani agencije INEA in posledičnih spremembah sporazumov o nepovratnih sredstvih pri določenih projektih z zamudo ob uporabi načela „uporabi ali izgubi“ za leti 2019 in 2020 pripravljajo vnovični razpisi z neporabljenimi sredstvi (reflow calls).
The objective is to minimise under-utilisation of the Programme’s budget. 
Cilj je čim bolj zmanjšati premajhno izkoriščenost proračuna programa.
The Commission considers that, besides the monitoring of delays, there are other safeguards that are designed to ensure that “effective corrective measures are taken on time”, such as taking appropriate action within the remit of the applicable legal and financial framework. 
Komisija meni, da poleg spremljanja zamud obstajajo tudi drugi zaščitni ukrepi, katerih namen je zagotoviti, da se „pravočasno sprejmejo učinkoviti korektivni ukrepi“, kot je na primer ustrezno ukrepanje v okviru veljavnega pravnega in finančnega okvira.
The Commission considers that the reduction of EU funding in case of delays does not always lead to the desired results in terms of implementation. 
Komisija meni, da zmanjšanje financiranja EU v primeru zamud ne privede vedno do želenih rezultatov v smislu izvajanja.
Most of the delaying factors cannot be fully managed by the beneficiaries alone. 
Večine dejavnikov, ki povzročajo zamude, ne morejo v celoti obvladovati samo upravičenci.
In the end, it is more important that important investments in EU infrastructure take place even with some delays. 
Na koncu je pomembneje, da se pomembne naložbe v infrastrukturo EU kljub vsemu izvedejo, čeprav z določeno zamudo.
In particular circumstances, the action status reports may not give the most up-to-date view of the technical and financial implementation of projects. 
V posebnih okoliščinah poročila o stanju ukrepa morda ne vsebujejo najnovejšega pregleda nad tehničnim in finančnim izvajanjem projektov.
However; the Commission observes that the ASRs are not the only monitoring tool used by INEA. 
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da poročila o stanju ukrepa niso edino orodje za spremljanje, ki ga uporablja agencija INEA.
The set of existing monitoring tools, which includes the MTR for transport, allows INEA to identify implementation issues even if not fully presented in the action status report, as the report rightly points out. 
Nabor obstoječih orodij za spremljanje, ki vključuje vmesni pregled za promet, agenciji INEA omogoča, da opredeli težave pri izvajanju, četudi niso v celoti predstavljene v poročilu o stanju ukrepa, kot je pravilno navedeno v poročilu.
The portfolios of the three CEF sectors are quite different and therefore difficult to compare. 
Portfelji treh sektorjev IPE so precej različni in jih je zato težko primerjati.
Yet, the Commission observes that reduction of grants should not be planned ex-ante, but carried out only when necessary for individual projects. 
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da zmanjšanje nepovratnih sredstev ne bi smelo biti načrtovano vnaprej, temveč bi ga bilo treba izvesti samo, če bi bilo potrebno za posamezne projekte.
This is currently the case for all CEF sectors, despite of whether or not a fully-fledged MTR exercise has been organised. 
To trenutno velja za vse sektorje IPE, ne glede na to, ali je bil organiziran celovit vmesni pregled ali ne.
Furthermore, it is current practice for the implementation of projects to continue well beyond the end of the programming period (i.e. end of 2020). 
Poleg tega je trenutna praksa izvajanja projektov takšna, da se nadaljujejo še dolgo po koncu programskega obdobja (tj. po koncu leta 2020).
As foreseen by the Financial Regulation, INEA will 4 
Kakor je predvideno v finančni uredbi, bo agencija INEA sprejela končne obveznosti do konca leta 2021 in nato upravljala postopno opuščanje programa.
71. 
SL SL 71.
The Commission considers that INEA’s mandate is clearly laid down in the various governance documents and the grant agreements give INEA sufficient tools to take corrective actions while ensuring that projects continue to be implemented. 
Komisija meni, da je mandat agencije INEA jasno določen v različnih dokumentih o upravljanju, sporazumi o nepovratnih sredstvih pa dajejo agenciji INEA zadostna orodja za sprejemanje popravljalnih ukrepov, hkrati pa zagotavljajo, da se projekti še naprej izvajajo.
Cooperation between INEA and its parent DGs is also very effective on this subject. 
Sodelovanje med agencijo INEA in pristojnimi generalnimi direktorati na tem področju je prav tako zelo učinkovito.
The Commission takes the view that INEA has the right tools to manage the projects. 
Komisija meni, da ima agencija INEA na voljo ustrezna orodja za upravljanje projektov.
Commitments to individual projects are possible until the end of 2021 and INEA, in close cooperation with its parent DGs, will make the best use of this period to maximise the use of EU funding. 
Obveznosti za posamezne projekte so možne do konca leta 2021, agencija INEA pa bo v tesnem sodelovanju s pristojnimi generalnimi direktorati to obdobje kar najbolje izkoristila za povečanje porabe sredstev EU.
Concerning their respective roles, INEA is responsible for budget implementation, monitoring of projects and reporting to the Commission, whereas the Commission is responsible for the monitoring of the programme as a whole, and the related reporting in the Programme Statements. 
Kar zadeva njuni vlogi, je agencija INEA odgovorna za izvrševanje proračuna, spremljanje projektov in poročanje Komisiji, medtem ko je Komisija odgovorna za spremljanje programa kot celote in s tem povezano poročanje v izjavah o programu.
The Commission stresses the effort towards improved and harmonised objectives and indicators in the CEF performance framework. 
Komisija poudarja prizadevanja za boljše in usklajene cilje in kazalnike v okviru smotrnosti IPE.
It notes that the INEA delegation act includes, in its article 19(1) (a) and (b), the necessary provisions regarding the INEA’s reporting. 
Ugotavlja, da člen 19(1)(a) in (b) akta o prenosu pooblastil na agencijo INEA vsebuje potrebne določbe v zvezi s poročanjem agencije INEA.
It will assess the scope for clarifying the agency’s role in this respect in the revision of the act of delegation for the 2021-2027 period. 
Pri reviziji akta o prenosu pooblastil za obdobje 2021–2027 bo ocenila možnosti za pojasnitev vloge agencije na tem področju.
The Commission considers that a performance framework to link projects funded to the programme objectives has to be a joint effort by the parent DGs and INEA. 
Komisija meni, da mora biti okvir smotrnosti za povezovanje financiranih projektov s cilji programa predmet skupnih prizadevanj pristojnih generalnih direktoratov in agencije INEA.
While INEA will greatly contribute to such a scheme, the responsibilities are to be shared appropriately between the parent DGs and INEA. 
Čeprav bo agencija INEA veliko prispevala k takšnemu sistemu, morajo biti naloge ustrezno razdeljene med pristojne generalne direktorate in agencijo INEA.
Box 5 - Example of inconsistent reporting on bottlenecks between projects of different magnitude The Commission notes that the box merely describes the outcome of the legal definition of the CEF Regulation. 
Okvir 5 – Primer neenotnega poročanja o ozkih grlih za projekte različnih velikosti Komisija ugotavlja, da je v okviru zgolj opisan izid pravne opredelitve uredbe o IPE.
However, INEA is well able to report correctly about projects of different magnitude, as there are many other indicators used than the “bottleneck” indicator. 
Vendar lahko agencija INEA pravilno poroča o projektih različne velikosti, saj se poleg kazalnika v zvezi z ozkimi grli uporabljajo tudi številni drugi kazalniki.
The Commission takes note of this observation and stresses that a working group has been re-established in March 2019 and therefore the process has resumed. 
Komisija je seznanjena s tem opažanjem in poudarja, da je bila marca 2019 ponovno vzpostavljena delovna skupina, zato se je proces nadaljeval.
The working group includes members from all parent DGs and INEA to cover all three CEF sectors. 
Delovna skupina vključuje člane iz vseh pristojnih generalnih direktoratov in agencije INEA, da bi zajeli vse tri sektorje IPE.
The Commission considers that there is ample time to conclude this process before the beginning of the next programming period (i.e. for CEF 2). 
Komisija meni, da je dovolj časa za zaključek tega procesa pred začetkom naslednjega programskega obdobja (tj. za IPE 2).
Whereas more information could be collected about long-term results of the investments made, the Commission stresses that currently INEA is entrusted specifically with the management of financial support to selected projects, which by nature focus on outputs at the end of the project. 
Čeprav bi bilo mogoče zbrati več informacij o dolgoročnih rezultatih izvedenih naložb, Komisija poudarja, da je agenciji INEA trenutno zaupano upravljanje finančne podpore za izbrane projekte, ki se po naravi osredotočajo na rezultate ob koncu projekta.
Measuring the long-term effects of infrastructure investment is an interesting path in which the Commission is keen to engage. 
Merjenje dolgoročnih učinkov infrastrukturnih naložb je zanimiva pot, ki jo želi Komisija vključiti.
While the measures at stake are desirable, the Commission points out that a more systematic evaluation of the results would need to be foreseen at programme level with the contribution of INEA. 
Čeprav so zadevni ukrepi zaželeni, Komisija poudarja, da bi bilo treba predvideti bolj sistematično ocenjevanje rezultatov na ravni programa s prispevkom agencije INEA.
The Commission therefore believes that such matter is beyond the scope of the present audit which targets the performance of INEA. 
Komisija zato meni, da takšna zadeva presega obseg sedanje revizije, ki je usmerjena v smotrnost delovanja agencije INEA.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1 – Improve the potential for synergies (a) The Commission accepts the recommendation. 
SL SL ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA Priporočilo 1 – Izboljšati potencial za sinergije (a) Komisija sprejema priporočilo.
The Commission highlights that the proposals related to CEF2 and Horizon Europe already pay particular attention to reaping synergies. (b) The Commission accepts the recommendation insofar as this assessment is carried out in the framework of the ongoing Cost Benefit Analysis. 
Komisija poudarja, da je v predlogih, povezanih z IPE2 in programom Obzorje Evropa, izkoriščanju sinergij že namenjena posebna pozornost. (b) Komisija sprejema priporočilo, če se ta ocena izvede v okviru tekoče analize stroškov in koristi.
The Commission cannot prejudge the results of this analysis which will consider several scenarios. 
Komisija ne more prejudicirati rezultatov te analize, ki bo upoštevala več scenarijev.
It, however, notes that other elements - such as keeping agencies at a manageable size, limiting as far as possible the number of parent DGs and consistency in terms of targeted beneficiaries - will have to be taken into account in the analysis. 
Vendar ugotavlja, da bo treba pri analizi upoštevati tudi druge elemente, kot so na primer ohranitev obvladljive velikosti agencij, čim večja omejitev pristojnih generalnih direktoratov in doslednost v smislu ciljnih upravičencev.
Regarding the flexibility in staff re-assignement, the Commission is currently looking at possibilities to introduce additional flexibility mechanisms for staff allocation between programmes within an executive agency, in order to reach increased efficiency in their management. 
Kar zadeva bolj fleksibilno prerazporejanje uslužbencev, Komisija trenutno ocenjuje možnosti uvedbe dodatnih mehanizmov fleksibilnosti za razporejanje osebja med programi v posamezni izvajalski agenciji, da bi se povečala učinkovitost njenega upravljanja.
This flexibility in staff assignment will however need to be properly framed to ensure the respect of the specification principle, which is set out in the Financial Regulation. 
Vendar mora biti ta fleksibilnost pri razporejanju osebja ustrezno urejena, da se zagotovi spoštovanje načela specifikacije, ki je določeno v finančni uredbi.
Recommendation 2 – Strengthen the framework for INEA’s management of the delegated programmes (a) The Commission partially accepts the recommendation. 
Priporočilo 2 – Okrepiti okvir agencije INEA za upravljanje delegiranih programov (a) Komisija delno sprejema priporočilo.
It will assess the possibilities to introduce additional flexibility mechanisms for staff allocation between programmes within a given executive agency, in order to reach increased efficiency in its management. 
Ocenila bo možnosti uvedbe dodatnih mehanizmov fleksibilnosti za razporejanje osebja med programi v posamezni izvajalski agenciji, da bi se povečala učinkovitost njenega upravljanja.
However, the Commission is bound by the respect of the budgetary principles set out in the Financial Regulation, and in particular the specification principle. 
Vendar jo zavezuje spoštovanje proračunskih načel, določenih v finančni uredbi, zlasti načela specifikacije.
So that any such flexibility will need to be properly framed to ensure the respect of this specification principle. 
Zato bo morala biti vsaka taka fleksibilnost ustrezno urejena, da se zagotovi spoštovanje tega načela specifikacije.
Furthermore, this issue should be addressed within the scope of the revision of the framework applicable to executive agencies as the Commission considers that any such flexibility mechanism should be common to all executive agencies. (b) The Commission accepts this recommendation. 
Poleg tega bi bilo treba to vprašanje obravnavati pri reviziji okvira, ki se uporablja za izvajalske agencije, saj Komisija meni, da bi moral biti vsak tak mehanizem fleksibilnosti skupen vsem izvajalskim agencijam. (b) Komisija sprejema to priporočilo.
The Commission and the agency have different roles: INEA implements on behalf of the Commission, and its reporting feeds into the Commission’s reporting on the performance of the programme. 
Vlogi Komisije in agencije se razlikujeta: agencija INEA izvaja programe v imenu Komisije in njena poročila prispevajo k poročanju Komisije o smotrnosti programa.
As such, the performance of INEA as an Agency should be distinguished from the performance framework of the programmes themselves. 6 
Zato je treba smotrnost delovanja agencije INEA kot agencije razlikovati od okvira smotrnosti za same programe.
EN EN Recommendation 3 – Ensure greater harmonisation and transparency of project selection procedures (a) The Commission accepts the recommendation. (b) The Commission accepts the recommendation. (c) The Commission accepts the recommendation. 
Priporočilo 3 – Zagotoviti večjo usklajenost in transparentnost postopkov za izbiro projektov (a) Komisija sprejema priporočilo. (b) Komisija sprejema priporočilo. (c) Komisija sprejema priporočilo. 6
86. 
SL SL 86.
The risk related to the full implementation of a programme is inherent in all (EU) funding programmes, in particular when related to infrastructure. 
Tveganje, povezano s polnim izvajanjem programa, je vključeno v vse programe financiranja (EU), zlasti ko gre za infrastrukturo.
Infrastructure projects typically entail long development and implementation times. 
Infrastrukturni projekti običajno zahtevajo veliko časa za razvoj in izvedbo.
The risk has been identified and INEA will continue to work to mitigate and reduce it. 
To tveganje je bilo opredeljeno in agencija INEA si bo še naprej prizadevala, da ga zmanjša in ublaži.
Furthermore, the commission believes that the knock-on effect of delays can be avoided if the transition between the two programming periods is well managed. 
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da se je mogoče izogniti posrednim učinkom zamud, če je prehod med obema programskima obdobjema dobro upravljan.
The Commission will work in view of ensuring a smooth transition. 
Komisija si bo prizadevala zagotoviti nemoten prehod.
Recommendation 4 – Set better conditions for timely implementation of the CEF (a) The Commission accepts the recommendation. (b) The Commission accepts the recommendation. (c) The Commission accepts the recommendation. 
Priporočilo 4 – Določiti boljše pogoje za pravočasno izvajanje IPE (a) Komisija sprejema priporočilo. (b) Komisija sprejema priporočilo. (c) Komisija sprejema priporočilo.
Works have already started to better monitor project results from a policy perspective. 
Z vidika politike so se že začela dela za boljše spremljanje rezultatov projektov.
Recommendation 5 – Redesign the performance framework to better monitor project results (a) The Commission accepts the recommendation. 
Priporočilo 5 – Spremeniti zasnovo okvira smotrnosti za boljše spremljanje rezultatov projektov (a) Komisija sprejema priporočilo.
The Commission stresses that a working group for this purpose has been re-established in March 2019 which includes members from all parent DGs and INEA to cover all three CEF sectors. 
Komisija poudarja, da je bila v ta namen marca 2019 ponovno vzpostavljena delovna skupina, ki vključuje člane iz vseh pristojnih generalnih direktoratov in agencije INEA, da bi zajeli vse tri sektorje IPE.
The Commission aims to conclude this process before the beginning of the next programming period (i.e. for CEF 2). (b) The Commission accepts the recommendation. 7 
Komisija namerava ta proces zaključiti pred začetkom naslednjega programskega obdobja (tj. za IPE 2). (b) Komisija sprejema priporočilo. 7
Audit team The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its audits of EU policies and programmes, or of management-related topics from specific budgetary areas. 
Revizijska ekipa V posebnih poročilih Evropskega računskega sodišča so predstavljeni rezultati njegovih revizij politik in programov EU ali tem v zvezi z upravljanjem na posameznih področjih proračuna.
The audit was led by ECA Member Oskar Herics, supported by Thomas Obermayr, Head of Private Office and Laura Gores, Private Office Attaché; Pietro Puricella, Principal Manager; Jolita Korzuniene, Head of Task; Susanna Rafalzik, Dieter Böckem, Thierry Lavigne, Nils Odins and Christian Verzé, Auditors. 
Revizijo je vodil član Evropskega računskega sodišča Oskar Herics, pri njej pa so sodelovali vodja njegovega kabineta Thomas Obermayr, atašejka v njegovem kabinetu Laura Gores, vodilni upravni uslužbenec Pietro Puricella, vodja naloge Jolita Korzuniene in revizorji Susanna Rafalzik, Dieter Böckem, Thierry Lavigne, Nils Odins in Christian Verzé.
Thomas Everett and Cathryn Lindsay provided linguistic support. 
Jezikovno podporo sta zagotovila Thomas Everett in Cathryn Lindsay.
From left to right: Thomas Everett, Susanna Rafalzik, Dieter Böckem, Jolita Korzuniene, Oskar Herics, Cathryn Lindsay, Nils Odins, Laura Gores, Christian Verzé, Pietro Puricella. 
Od leve proti desni: Thomas Everett, Susanna Rafalzik, Dieter Böckem, Jolita Korzuniene, Oskar Herics, Cathryn Lindsay, Nils Odins, Laura Gores, Christian Verzé in Pietro Puricella.