natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The regulation does not put in place any mechanism enabling the EPPO (or any other EU body) to urge Member State authorities to allocate resources to the pro-active work necessary for the investigation of fraud in EU spending, or to the cases handled by the delegated prosecutors. 
Uredba ne določa nobenega mehanizma, ki bi Evropskemu javnemu tožilstvu (ali drugemu organu EU) omogočil, da pozove organe držav članic, naj dodelijo sredstva za proaktivno delo, potrebno za preiskovanje goljufij pri porabi EU, ali za primere, ki jih obravnavajo delegirani tožilci.
Another risk is that the extensive internal consultation and translation needed for the EPPO chambers’ work may end up taking too long for criminal procedures, where time is very often the most limited resource. 
Obstaja tudi tveganje, da bi lahko obsežno notranje posvetovanje in prevajanje, ki bosta potrebna za delo senatov Evropskega javnega tožilstva, trajalo predolgo za kazenske postopke, pri katerih je čas pogosto najbolj omejen vir.
What we recommend IX Based on these observations, we consider that more drive and leadership is needed in the EU to take real action against fraud in EU spending. 
Kaj Sodišče priporoča IX Sodišče glede na ta opažanja meni, da sta v EU potrebna boljši zagon in vodenje, da bi resnično ukrepali proti goljufijam pri porabi EU.
We therefore consider there is a clear need for the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to step up its fight against fraud in EU spending. 
Prepričano je, da obstaja jasna potreba po tem, da Komisija v sodelovanju z državami članicami okrepi boj proti goljufijam pri porabi EU.
X The Commission should: Recommendation 1: put in place a robust fraud reporting system, providing information on the scale, nature and root causes of fraud. 
X Komisija bi morala: Priporočilo 1: vzpostaviti zanesljiv sistem za prijavljanje goljufij, ki bo zagotavljal informacije o obsegu, naravi in temeljnih vzrokih goljufij.
Recommendation 2: to achieve better coordination in tackling fraud, within the context of collegial responsibility for fraud prevention and detection, ensure that strategic fraud risk management and fraud prevention would be clearly referred to in the portfolio of one Commissioner; and adopt a new comprehensive anti-fraud strategy based on a comprehensive analysis of fraud risks. 
Priporočilo 2: doseči boljše usklajevanje pri boju proti goljufijam v kontekstu odgovornosti kolegija za preprečevanje in odkrivanje goljufij, zagotoviti, da sta strateško obvladovanje tveganja goljufij in preprečevanje goljufij izrecno omenjena v portfelju enega komisarja, in sprejeti novo izčrpno strategijo za boj proti goljufijam na podlagi izčrpne analize tveganj goljufij.
Recommendation 3: intensify its fraud prevention activities. 
Priporočilo 3: okrepiti dejavnosti za preprečevanje goljufij.
In particular, the Commission should: — ensure that DGs use the early detection and exclusion system in direct and indirect management and call on the Member States to identify and flag fraudulent economic operators and the private individuals linked to them; — urge all Member States to make active use of the ARACHNE database to prevent fraudulent and irregular use of EU funds. 
Komisija bi morala zlasti: — zagotoviti, da generalni direktorati uporabljajo sistem za zgodnje odkrivanje in izključitev pri neposrednem in posrednem upravljanju, države članice pa pozvati, da morajo prepoznavati goljufive gospodarske subjekte in fizične osebe, ki so povezane z njimi, ter opozarjati nanje; — odločno pozvati vse države članice, naj dejavno uporabljajo podatkovno zbirko ARACHNE, da bi preprečile goljufivo in nezakonito porabo sredstev EU.
Recommendation 4: reconsider OLAF’s role and responsibilities in combatting fraud in EU spending in light of the establishment of the EPPO. 
Priporočilo 4: ponovno razmisliti o vlogi in odgovornostih urada OLAF v boju proti goljufijam pri porabi EU glede na ustanovitev Evropskega javnega tožilstva.
In particular, the Commission should propose to the European Parliament and the Council measures to give OLAF a strategic and oversight role in EU anti-fraud action. 7 
Komisija bi morala Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu zlasti predlagati ukrepe, s katerimi bi OLAF v delovanju EU za boj proti goljufijam prevzel strateško in nadzorno vlogo.
Introduction Definition of fraud 01 Fraud1 generally refers to any intentional act or omission designed to deceive others, resulting in the victim suffering a loss and the perpetrator achieving a gain. 
Uvod Opredelitev goljufije 01 Goljufija1 na splošno pomeni vsako namerno dejanje ali opustitev dejanja, namenjeno preslepitvi drugih, ki žrtvi povzroči izgubo, storilcu pa korist.
For example, if a grant beneficiary tries to intentionally mislead the funding provider in order to claim unjustifiably high expenditure, then that is fraud. 
Če na primer prejemnik nepovratnih sredstev poskusi namerno zavajati ponudnika sredstev in navaja neupravičeno visoke odhodke, je to goljufija.
02 Fraud involving public funds is sometimes linked with corruption23, which is traditionally understood as any act or omission that abuses official authority, or seeks to bring about the abuse of official authority, in order to obtain undue benefit. 
02 Goljufije v zvezi z javnimi sredstvi so včasih povezane s korupcijo,2 3 ta pa običajno pomeni vsako dejanje ali opustitev dejanja, s katero storilec zlorabi javno oblast ali skuša doseči zlorabo javne oblasti, da bi pridobil neupravičeno korist.
For example, if a grant beneficiary bribes an official to accept unduly high expenditure, then both fraud and corruption have been committed. 
Če na primer prejemnik nepovratnih sredstev podkupi uradnika, da ta sprejme neupravičeno visoke odhodke, gre za goljufijo in korupcijo.
03 Irregularity4 is a broader concept than fraud. 
03 Nepravilnost4 je širši pojem kot goljufija.
It is defined as any infringement of the law, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the EU budget. 
Opredeljena je kot vsako kršenje zakonodaje, ki je ali bi lahko škodljivo vplivalo na proračun EU.
If such breach of law has been committed intentionally, then it is fraud. 
Če je bila zakonodaja kršena namerno, gre za goljufijo.
Hence, what differentiates fraud from other irregularities is malicious intent on the part of the perpetrator. 
Razlika med goljufijo in drugimi nepravilnostmi je torej zlonamernost storilca.
Protecting the EU’s financial interests against fraud 04 Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides a legal basis for protecting the EU's financial interests against fraud, corruption and other illegal activities (Annex I). 
Zaščita finančnih interesov EU pred goljufijami 04 Člen 325 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU) vsebuje pravno podlago za zaščito finančnih interesov EU pred goljufijami, korupcijo in vsemi drugimi nezakonitimi dejanji (Priloga I).
See the legal definition in Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (the PIF Directive). 
05 Evropska komisija mora sprejeti potrebne ukrepe, da bi dala sprejemljivo zagotovilo, da se nepravilnosti (vključno z goljufijami) pri porabi proračuna EU preprečujejo, odkrivajo in Glej pravno opredelitev pojma v členu 3 Direktive (EU) 2017/1371 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 5. julija 2017 o boju proti goljufijam, ki škodijo finančnim interesom Unije, z uporabo kazenskega prava (direktiva o zaščiti finančnih interesov).
See recital (8) of the PIF Directive. 
Glej uvodno izjavo (8) direktive o zaščiti finančnih interesov.
See the legal definition in Article 4 of the EU Directive 2017/1371 (PIF Directive). 
Glej pravno opredelitev pojma v členu 4 Direktive (EU) 2017/1371 (direktiva o zaščiti finančnih interesov).
Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95. 8 1 2 3 4 
7 1 2 3 4 Člen 1(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES, Euratom) št. 2988/95.
It shares this responsibility with Member States in the domain of shared management, e.g. in the Cohesion and Agriculture spending areas. 
odpravljajo.5 To odgovornost si deli z državami članicami pri deljenem upravljanju, npr. pri porabi na področjih kohezije in kmetijstva.
06 The ‘Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law’ (the ‘PIF Directive’)6 provides for harmonised definition of offences affecting the EU’s financial interests as well as penalties and statute of limitations for such cases. 
06 Direktiva o boju proti goljufijam, ki škodijo finančnim interesom Unije, z uporabo kazenskega prava (direktiva o zaščiti finančnih interesov)6 vsebuje usklajeno opredelitev kaznivih dejanj, ki škodijo finančnim interesom EU, ter kazni in zastaralne roke za take primere.
This Directive was adopted on 5 July 2017. Member States have to implement it into national law by July 20197. 07 There are a large number of players involved in managing the risk of fraud against the EU budget, both at EU and Member State level (Annex II). 
Sprejeta je bila 5. julija 2017, države članice pa jo morajo v nacionalno pravo prenesti do julija 2019.7 07 V obvladovanje tveganja goljufij, ki škodijo proračunu EU, je tako na ravni EU kot na ravni držav članic vključenih veliko akterjev (Priloga II).
The main ones are: o The European Anti-Fraud Office (known by the abbreviation of its name in French OLAF - ‘Office européen de lutte antifraude’) is currently the EU’s key anti-fraud body. 
Glavni med njimi so: o Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (znan pod kratico OLAF, ki izhaja iz njegovega imena v francoščini – Office européen de lutte antifraude) je trenutno ključni organ EU za boj proti goljufijam.
It contributes to the design and implementation of the Commission’s anti-fraud policy. It is the only body with independent investigative powers at EU level8. o The Commission's Directorates-General (DGs) and Executive Agencies are responsible for setting up effective fraud risk management systems in the different areas of the EU budget. o In shared management, Member State programme authorities are required to implement an adequate anti-fraud framework. 
OLAF sodeluje pri oblikovanju in izvajanju politike Komisije na področju boja proti goljufijam ter je edini organ z neodvisnimi preiskovalnimi pooblastili na ravni EU.8 o Generalni direktorati in izvajalske agencije Komisije so odgovorni za vzpostavitev uspešnih sistemov za obvladovanje tveganja goljufij na različnih področjih proračuna EU. o Pri deljenem upravljanju morajo organi držav članic, pristojni za programe, uvesti ustrezen okvir za boj proti goljufijam.
Criminal investigation and prosecution are likewise entirely under the responsibility of the national judicial authorities. 
Tudi za preiskovanje in pregon kaznivih dejanj so v celoti odgovorni nacionalni sodni organi.
See Article 32 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (the Financial Regulation). 
966/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. oktobra 2012 o finančnih pravilih, ki se uporabljajo za splošni proračun Unije (finančna uredba).
See Article 3 of the PIF Directive. 
Glej člen 3 direktive o zaščiti finančni interesov.
See Article 17 of the PIF Directive. 
Glej člen 17 direktive o zaščiti finančni interesov.
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conductedby the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999. 
Člen 1(2) Uredbe (EU, Euratom) št. 883/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. septembra 2013 o preiskavah, ki jih izvaja Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF), ter razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št.
10 o In October 2017, twenty Member States9 decided to establish the European Public Prosecutor's Office ("the EPPO").There are 22 Member States currently participating in the EPPO. 
9 o Oktobra 2017 se je dvajset držav članic9 odločilo, da ustanovijo Evropsko javno tožilstvo, trenutno pa v njem sodeluje 22 držav članic.
This will be an EU body with powers to investigate and prosecute crimes against the EU’s financial interests. 
To bo organ EU s pooblastili za preiskovanje in pregon kaznivih dejanj, ki škodijo finančnim interesom EU.
Under Article 120(2) of the EPPO Regulation10, the body will not start operating earlier than three years after the date on which the Regulation enters into force, i.e. not before the end of 2020. 
V skladu s členom 120(2) uredbe o Evropskem javnem tožilstvu10 to ne bo začelo delovati prej kot tri leta po dnevu začetka veljavnosti Uredbe, torej ne pred koncem leta 2020.
08 The European Court of Auditors (ECA) is the EU’s independent auditor. We examine whether all revenue has been received and all expenditure incurred in a lawful and regular manner and whether the financial management has been sound. 
08 Evropsko računsko sodišče je neodvisna revizijska institucija EU, ki preverja, ali so bili vsi prihodki prejeti, vsi odhodki pa nastali zakonito in pravilno ter ali je bilo finančno poslovodenje dobro.
09 Finally, under Article 325(4) of the TFEU, the ECA must be consulted on any measures to be adopted by the legislator in the fields of the prevention of and fight against fraud affecting the EU’s financial interests. 
Če Sodišče pri svojem delu opazi primere suma goljufije, jih prijavi uradu OLAF za predhodno analizo in morebitno preiskavo.11 09 V skladu s členom 325(4) PDEU se je treba s Sodiščem posvetovati o vsakršnih ukrepih, ki jih namerava zakonodajalec sprejeti za preprečevanje goljufij, ki škodijo finančnim interesom Unije, in boj proti njim.
In recent years, the Commission has published several legislative proposals linked to the subject of this audit (Annex III). 
Komisija je v preteklih letih objavila več zakonodajnih predlogov, ki so povezani s predmetom te revizije (Priloga III).
We have issued our opinion on some of these proposals12. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. 
Sodišče je o nekaterih izmed njih izdalo mnenje.12 Avstrija, Belgija, Bolgarija, Ciper, Češka, Estonija, Finska, Francija, Grčija, Hrvaška, Italija, Latvija, Litva, Luksemburg, Nemčija, Portugalska, Romunija, Slovaška, Slovenija in Španija.
The Netherlands and Malta have joined the EPPO in the course of 2018. 
Nizozemska in Malta sta se Evropskemu javnemu tožilstvu pridružili v letu 2018.
10 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’). 
10 Uredba Sveta (EU) 2017/1939 z dne 12. oktobra 2017 o izvajanju okrepljenega sodelovanja v zvezi z ustanovitvijo Evropskega javnega tožilstva (EJT).
11 See paragraphs 1.35 and 1.36 of our 2016 Annual Report. 
11 Glej odstavka 1.35 in 1.36 Letnega poročila Sodišča za leto 2016.
12 See ECA Opinion No 1/2018 concerning the proposal of 2 May 2018 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States; ECA opinion No 9/2018 concerning the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the EU Anti-Fraud Programme; ECA opinion No 8/2018 concerning the proposal of 23 May 2018 on amending OLAF Regulation 883/2013 as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations. 
12 Glej Mnenje Evropskega računskega sodišča št. 1/2018 o predlogu uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 2. maja 2018 o zaščiti proračuna Unije v primeru splošnih pomanjkljivosti v zvezi z načelom pravne države v državah članicah; Mnenje Evropskega računskega sodišča št.
9 Audit scope and approach 10 Our audit assessed whether the Commission is properly managing the risk of fraud in EU spending. 
9 Obseg revizije in revizijski pristop 10 Pri reviziji je Sodišče ocenilo, ali Komisija ustrezno obvladuje tveganje goljufij pri porabi EU.
In particular, we examined: o whether the Commission properly assesses the scale, nature and causes of fraud in EU spending; o whether the Commission has an effective strategic framework for managing the risk of fraud; o whether the Commission focuses sufficiently on preventing fraud; o whether OLAF’s administrative investigations lead to prosecution and recovery. 
Preučilo je zlasti: o ali Komisija ustrezno ocenjuje obseg, naravo in vzroke goljufij pri porabi EU; o ali ima Komisija uspešen strateški okvir za obvladovanje tveganja goljufij; o ali Komisija namenja dovolj pozornosti preprečevanju goljufij; o ali upravne preiskave urada OLAF vodijo do pregona in izterjave.
Figure 1 – Our audit scope for OLAF OLAF’s mandate and our audit scope 11 Commission EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies OLAF develops EU policy to counter fraud OLAF investigates s e ri ous misconduct by EU staff and members of EU i ns ti tuti ons (internal investigations) Member States, third countries, international organisations OLAF conducts independent investigations into fraud, corruption and irregularities (external investigations) EU Expenditure EU Revenue (customs duties) OLAF activities covered by our audit scope OLAF activities not covered by our audit scope Source: ECA. 
Slika 1 – Obseg revizije urada OLAF Mandat urada OLAF in obseg revizije Sodišča 10 Komisija Institucije, organi, uradi in agencije EU OLAF preiskuje resne kršitve, ki jih zagreši osebje EU in člani institucij EU (notranje preiskave) OLAF razvije politiko EU za preprečevanje goljufij Države članice, tretje države, mednarodne organizacije OLAF izvaja neodvisne preiskave goljufij, korupcije in nepravilnosti (zunanje preiskave) Izdatki EU Prihodki EU (carine) Dejavnosti urada OLAF, ki so zajete v reviziji Sodišča Dejavnosti urada OLAF, ki niso zajete v reviziji Sodišča Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče 11 Preučilo je tudi verjetnost, da bo Evropsko javno tožilstvo obravnavalo slabosti, ki jih je Sodišče opredelilo v sedanji zasnovi boja proti goljufijam pri porabi EU.
12 12 Our audit focused purely on fraud in EU spending. 
12 Revizija Sodišča je bila osredotočena izključno na goljufije pri porabi EU, vanjo pa so bila zajeta vsa pomembna področja porabe EU (kmetijstvo, kohezija, raziskave in zunanje
We focused mainly on the Commission’s actions to prevent and respond to detected fraud. We did not examine OLAF’s investigations into EU revenue. 
Sodišče se je osredotočilo predvsem na ukrepe Komisije za preprečevanje odkritih goljufij in odzivanje nanje, ni pa preučevalo preiskav urada OLAF v zvezi s prihodki EU.
Regarding OLAF’s external investigations, we focused on financial and judicial recommendations, because these are its main outputs13. Nor did we examine internal investigations against officials or other EU employees, members of institutions or bodies, or heads of offices or agencies. 
Kar zadeva zunanje preiskave urada OLAF, se je Sodišče osredotočilo na finančna in sodna priporočila, saj so ta glavni izložki teh preiskav.13 Prav tako ni preučevalo notranjih preiskav v zvezi z uradniki ali drugimi zaposlenimi EU, člani institucij ali organov ali vodij uradov ali agencij.
13 We based our observations on the following sources of evidence: (a) analysis of relevant documentation (Commission and OLAF documents, ECA reports, relevant studies and research) and databases (i.e. IMS and Arachne); (b) interviews with OLAF officials and officials from seven spending DGs (DG AGRI, DG EMPL, DG REGIO, DG RTD, DG DEVCO, DG CNECT and DG HOME), as well as DGs and other internal services playing an important role in the Commission’s oversight of fraud risk management (OLAF supervisory committee, SEC GEN, DG BUDG, and IAS); (c) interviews with bodies external to the Commission, such as Europol and Eurojust; (d) visits to Anti-Fraud Coordination Services (AFCOSs), public prosecutors’ offices and relevant ministries in four Member States (Bulgaria, Berlin and Brandenburg in Germany, Rome and Perugia in Italy and Poland); (e) a survey sent to 28 Member States’ Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs), 23 of which replied; a survey sent by Europol in the framework of this audit to their 28 national contact points, 13 of which replied; (f) contributions from 15 experts (criminologists, legal and social scientists, prosecutors) who provided input and advice throughout the audit and commented on our preliminary findings. 
13 Opažanja Sodišča temeljijo na naslednjih virih dokazov: (a) analizi ustrezne dokumentacije (dokumentov Komisije in urada OLAF, poročil Sodišča, ustreznih študij in raziskav) ter podatkovnih zbirk (npr. sistema za upravljanje nepravilnosti in orodja ARACHNE); (b) razgovorih z uradniki urada OLAF in uradniki sedmih generalnih direktoratov porabnikov (GD AGRI, GD EMPL, GD REGIO, GD RTD, GD DEVCO, GD CNECT in GD HOME) ter generalnimi direktorati in drugimi notranjimi službami s pomembno vlogo pri nadzoru obvladovanja tveganja goljufij, ki ga izvaja Komisija (nadzornim odborom urada OLAF, Generalnim sekretariatom, GD BUDG in Službo za notranjo revizijo); (c) razgovorih z organi zunaj Komisije, kot sta Europol in Eurojust; (d) obiskih pri službah za usklajevanje boja proti goljufijam, javnih tožilstvih in ustreznih ministrstvih v štirih državah članicah (Bolgariji, Berlinu in Brandenburgu v Nemčiji, Rimu in Perugii v Italiji ter na Poljskem); (e) anketi, poslani vrhovnim revizijskim institucijam 28 držav članic, od katerih se jih je odzvalo 23, in anketi, ki jo je Europol v okviru te revizije poslal svojim 28 nacionalnim kontaktnim točkam, od katerih se jih je odzvalo 13; (f) prispevkih 15 strokovnjakov (kriminologov, pravnih in socialnih znanstvenikov ter tožilcev), ki so med izvajanjem revizije prispevali podatke in svetovali ter dajali pripombe na predhodne ugotovitve. 11 13 V okviru ukrepov Komisije za preprečevanje goljufij je Sodišče preučilo tudi administrativna priporočila urada OLAF.
Observations The Commission’s insight into the scale, nature and causes of fraud is insufficient 14 Fraud measurement is the first step in a properly designed and implemented approach to countering fraud. 
Opažanja Komisija ima nezadosten vpogled v obseg, naravo in vzroke goljufij 14 Prvi korak primerno zasnovanega in izvajanega pristopa do preprečevanja goljufij je merjenje goljufij.
Without good core data on fraud, it is more difficult to plan and monitor anti-fraud actions. 
Brez dobrih temeljnih podatkov o goljufijah je ukrepe za boj proti njim težje načrtovati in spremljati.
15 Fraud against corporately managed funds, such as EU money, is a hidden crime, meaning that it cannot be discovered without ex-ante or ex-post checks undertaken specifically for this purpose. 
15 Goljufije v zvezi s sredstvi, ki jih upravljajo pravne osebe, kot so sredstva EU, so skrita kazniva dejanja, zato jih je mogoče odkriti le z namenskimi predhodnimi ali naknadnimi pregledi.
Since such checks cannot be comprehensive and are not always productive, some cases remain undetected. 
Ker taki pregledi ne morejo biti izčrpni in se z njimi goljufije ne odkrijejo vedno, nekateri primeri niso odkriti.
This is compounded by the lack of any individual victims of fraud against corporately managed funds who would report such crimes and bring them to the attention of the relevant authorities. 
Poleg tega pri goljufijah, povezanih s takimi sredstvi, ni posameznih žrtev, ki bi kaznivo dejanje prijavile in nanj opozorile ustrezne organe, kar je dodaten oteževalni dejavnik.
Figure 2 represents undetected fraud and the stages between the detection of a case of suspected fraud and the establishment of fraud by a court. 
Slika 2 prikazuje neodkrite goljufije ter stopnje od odkritega primera suma goljufije do ugotovitve goljufije, ki ga potrdi sodišče.