natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Statistics from Member States for 2006 showed that in only 5 % of all cases (737 out of 14 565 late replies) had delays been notified to the requesting authorities. 
Statistični podatki iz držav članic za leto 2006 kažejo, da so bili organi prosilci v samo 5 % vseh primerov (737 od 14 565 poznih odgovorov) obveščeni o poznih odgovorih.
Absence of such notification prevents the requesting Member State from taking alternative action in the knowledge that the request will not be promptly answered. 
Odsotnost uradnih obvestil državi članici prosilki preprečuje, da bi sprejela alternativne ukrepe, če ve, da na zahtevek ne bo hitrega odgovora.
Furthermore, during the audit only very few cases were found where partial information was given that was already in the possession of the requested authority and therefore rapidly As far as the replies given within one month are con- 
Poleg tega je bilo med revizijo odkritih zelo malo primerov, ko so bile posredovane delne informacije, ki jih je zaprošeni Pri odgovorih z enomesečnim rokom so statistični
25.1.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/11 available, followed by a more comprehensive answer once tax control visits had taken place. 
25.1.2008 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 20/11 organ že imel, in so bile zato hitro na voljo, temu pa je sledil izčrpnejši odgovor po obiskih davčne kontrole.
Lack of priority given to requests by local tax offices 32. 
Zahtevki lokalnih davčnih uradov niso obravnavani prednostno 32.
The audit revealed a number of factors which impact negatively on the timeliness of replies. 
Revizija je razkrila številne dejavnike, ki negativno vplivajo na pravočasnost odgovorov.
Most of the delays in responding to requests occur at Local Tax Office (LTO) level. 
Do večine zamud pri odgovorih na zahtevke prihaja na ravni lokalnih davčnih uradov.
Mechanisms are not always in place to ensure that LTOs give as much priority to administrative cooperation as to their other activities (1). 
Mehanizmi, ki bi zagotavljali, da lokalni davčni uradi dajo enako prednost upravnemu sodelovanju kot drugim svojim dejavnostim, niso vedno vzpostavljeni (1).
A similar observation was made in a report provided by the National Audit Office of Denmark (NAOD) (2). 
Podobno opažanje je bilo navedeno v poročilu Nacionalnega revizijskega urada Danske (2).
Danish customs and tax authorities had set target figures for compliance with case processing time limits, but, at the time of the audit, requests from the tax authorities of other countries were not included in these target figures. 
Danski carinski in davčni organi so določili ciljne številke za skladnost z roki za obdelavo primerov, vendar v času revizije zahtevki davčnih organov drugih držav niso bili zajeti v te ciljne številke.
According to a follow-up report by the NAOD, the minister responsible has taken initiatives to deal with the issue. 
Po navedbah iz poročila Nacionalnega revizijskega urada Danske o nadaljnjem ukrepanju, je pristojni minister sprejel pobude za obravnavo tega vprašanja.
A number of other causes were found which have a negative impact on the treatment of requests for information. 
Odkriti so bili tudi številni drugi vzroki, ki imajo negativen vpliv na obravnavanje zahtevkov za informacije.
These included: inadequate use of the information request forms (e.g. multiple requests in a single standard form, over use of Ôfree-textŐ boxes of these forms and use of non-electronic communications) by the sending Member States, difficulties in understanding what was actually requested (e.g. due to unclear information, language problems or mistakes in using the standard forms), and doubts about the usefulness of certain requests in the Member States receiving them. 
Med temi so bili: države članice pošiljateljice niso ustrezno uporabljale obrazcev zahtevkov za izmenjavo informacij (npr. več zahtevkov v enem standardiziranem obrazcu, prevelika uporaba rubrik za „prosto besedilo“ v teh obrazcih in uporaba neelektronskega spo-ročanja), težave pri razumevanju tega, kar se dejansko zahteva (npr. zaradi nejasnih informacij, jezikovnih težav ali napak pri uporabi standardiziranih obrazcev), ter dvomi o koristnosti določenih zahtevkov v državah članicah, ki so jih prejele.
Weaknesses in monitoring systems of some Member States 34. 
Pomanjkljivosti v sistemih spremljanja nekaterih držav članic 34.
Delays can also be caused by the fact that not all Member States have set up adequate systems for monitoring and managing timely response to requests. 
Zamude lahko povzroča tudi dejstvo, da niso vse države članice vzpostavile ustreznih sistemov za spremljanje in upravljanje pravočasnega odgovarjanja na zahtevke.
Positive examples of such management of requests received were found in Luxembourg, Poland, Slovenia and the UK, where CLOs set internal deadlines and monitor them effectively. 
Pozitivni primeri takšnega upravljanja prejetih zahtevkov so bili ugotovljeni v Luksemburgu, na Poljskem, v Sloveniji in Združenem kraljestvu, kjer so centralni uradi za zvezo določili notranje roke in jih uspešno spremljali.
In Italy, where the software put in place for this purpose by the CLO was not effectively used, cases of input errors and missing data were found which led to mismanagement of requests. 
V Italiji, kjer programska oprema, ki jo je v ta namen namestil centralni urad za zvezo, ni bila uspešno uporabljena, so bile odkrite napake pri vnosu in manjkajoči podatki, kar je privedlo do neustreznega upravljanja zahtevkov.
In the CLO reminders to liaison departments were programmed for only 10 days before the expiry of deadlines, too late for necessary action to be undertaken. 
V centralnih uradih za zvezo so bili opomniki službam za zvezo programirani samo 10 dni pred iztekom rokov, kar je bilo prepozno za sprejetje potrebnih ukrepov.
(1) Article 5(4) of the regulation stipulates that, in order to obtain the information sought by a requesting authority from another Member State, the requested authority shall proceed as though acting on its own account. 
(1) Člen 5(4) uredbe določa, da mora za potrebne informacije, ki jih želi organ prosilec pridobiti od druge države članice, zaprošeni organ ravnati, kakor bi deloval zase.
(2) Report to the Public Accounts Committee on measures to counter VAT carousel fraud, The National Audit Office of Denmark, September 2006. 
(2) Poročilo odboru za javne finance o ukrepih za preprečevanje vrtiljačnih goljufij, Nacionalni revizijski urad Danske, september 2006.
Though both the Dutch and French CLOs set intermediate deadlines for the LTOs to respond to requests received, in neither CLO was there evidence of monitoring of these timetables. 
Čeprav sta tako nizozemski kot francoski centralni urad za zvezo lokalnim davčnim organom določila vmesne roke za odgovore na prejete zahtevke, ni bilo niti v prvem niti v drugem centralnem uradu za zvezo nobenih dokazov o spremljanju teh rokov.
Only where reminders were received from the requesting Member State was any action taken towards the LTO which was late in providing answers. 
Samo ko so bili iz države članice prosilke prejeti opomniki, se je ukrepalo v zvezi z lokalnim davčnim uradom, ki je zamujal z odgovori.
Weaknesses in the organisational set-up of CLOs 38. 
Pomanjkljivosti v organizaciji centralnih uradov za zvezo 38.
In some Member States visited with a high number of late replies, the Court found that complicated organisational set-ups also contribute to delays and create problems in monitoring. 
Sodišče je v nekaterih obiskanih državah članicah z visokim številom poznih odgovorov ugotovilo, da k zamudam prispeva tudi zapletena organizacija, ki povzroča težave pri spremljanju.
In Italy, in addition to the CLO, there are three liaison departments at central Member State level, all of them equally competent in the field of VAT cooperation. 
V Italiji so poleg centralnega urada za zvezo tri službe za zvezo na osrednji ravni države članice, ki imajo enake pristojnosti glede sodelovanja na področju davka na dodano vrednost.
Other Member States are free to contact each time any one of the three liaison departments and send the requests directly to the department selected. 
Druge države članice se lahko same odločijo, s katero od teh treh služb bodo stopile v stik in pošiljajo zahtevke neposredno izbrani službi.
Working procedures of the three liaison departments are not harmonised and there is insufficient coordination amongst them and weak supervision by the CLO. 
Delovni postopki teh treh služb za zvezo niso usklajeni, med njimi ni dovolj koordinacije, nadzor centralnega urada za zvezo pa je pomanjkljiv.
Furthermore, such an organisational set-up is not in line with the regulation which provides (3) that liaison departments have to be given specific territorial competence or specialised operational responsibility. 
Poleg tega takšna organizacijska struktura ni v skladu z uredbo, ki določa (3), da mora biti službam za zvezo dodeljena posebna ozemeljska pristojnost ali specializirana operativna odgovornost.
The Dutch CLO comprises two independent operating units, one located in Amsterdam and the other in Almelo, each with its own management structure. 
Nizozemski centralni urad za zvezo zajema dve neodvisni operativni enoti, ena je v Amsterdamu, druga v Almelu, vsaka pa ima svojo upravljavsko strukturo.
The Court found cases where it took nearly three months before replies to requests provided by LTOs were passed on to the requesting Member States. 
Sodišče je odkrilo primere, v katerih je trajalo skoraj tri mesece, preden so bili odgovori na zahtevke, ki so jih predložili lokalni davčni uradi, posredovani državam članicam prosilkam.
In these cases, LTOs had delivered replies to the CLO in Almelo which were transmitted to the CLO Amsterdam from where they were sent to the requesting Member States. 
Lokalni davčni uradi so v teh primerih predložili odgovore centralnemu uradu za zvezo v Almelu, ta pa jih je poslal centralnemu uradu za zvezo v Amsterdamu, od koder so bili poslani državam članicam prosilkam.
In Germany, according to the information made available to other Member States (4), the tasks of the CLO have been split between three units of the Central Federal Tax Office, one based in Bonn, the two others in Saarlouis. 
Glede na informacije, dane na voljo drugim državam članicam (4), so bile v Nemčiji naloge centralnega urada za zvezo razdeljene med tri enote osrednjega zveznega davčnega urada, eno s sedežem v Bonnu, drugi dve pa v Saarlouisu.
No information was made available to other Member States about who was heading the CLO. 
Drugim državam članicam niso bile dane na voljo nobene informacije o tem, kdo vodi centralni urad za zvezo.
The coordination problems caused by the complicated organisational structures and the weaknesses of monitoring systems contribute to the significant discrepancies in the statistics produced by different Member States. 
Težave pri usklajevanju, ki jih povzročajo zapletene organizacijske strukture in pomanjkljivosti v sistemih spremljanja, prispevajo k velikim razhajanjem v statističnih podatkih, ki jih pripravijo različne države članice.
In several cases there are significant differences between the number of requests which a Member State claims to have received and the number of requests which other Member States claim to have sent it (see Table 3). 
V številnih primerih obstajajo pomembne razlike med številom zahtevkov, za katere država članica trdi, da jih je prejela, in številom zahtevkov, za katere druga država članica trdi, da ji jih je poslala (glej tabelo 3).
(3) Article 2(3). 
(3) Člen 2(3).
(4) Document ÔKontaktpunkte fr die gegenseitige Amtshilfe im Bereich der Umsatzsteuer, Stand: 1 Februar 2007Ő. C 20/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.1.2008 Table 3 Discrepancies by Member State (2005) Number of requests received Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Slovenia Slovak Republic Finland Sweden United Kingdom Source: Quality of reply 43. 
Februar 2007“. C 20/12 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 25.1.2008 Tabela 3 Razhajanja po državah članicah (2005) Število prejetih zahtevkov Po navedbi države članice prejemnice Po navedbi države članice prosilke Razhajanje 81 –38 –37 2 040 7 25 – 185 158 22 – 1 518 – – – % 5,5 – 9,3 – 5,4 32,6 5,3 11,7 – 6,5 7,4 9,3 – 54,2 – 18 6,3 – 6,3 2,6 13,1 8,3 – 2,5 6,4 – 5,3 – 4,9 – 7,3 – 3,2 – 3,4 10,9 0 — 17,2 Belgija Češka Danska Nemčija Estonija Grčija Španija Francija Irska Italija Ciper Latvija Litva Luksemburg Madžarska Malta Nizozemska Avstrija Poljska Portugalska Slovenija Slovaška Finska Švedska Združeno kraljestvo Vir: Statistični podatki držav članic v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št.
Examination of the sampled requests and answers showed that though the information provided was sometimes inadequately presented, in most cases it was comprehensive and detailed, answering the questions posed. 
Preučitev vzorca zahtevkov in odgovorov je pokazala, da so bile predložene informacije kljub včasih neustrezni predstavitvi izčrpne in podrobne in so nudile odgovore na zastavljena vprašanja.
25 9 12 12 37 1 54 57 31 25 Đ7 Đ10 Đ6 43 Đ1 2 12 143 885 588 506 96 316 179 395 242 25 749 2 Đ Đ 2 2 Total SUM OF ABSOLUTE AMOUNTS OF DISCREPANCIES Ń 4 441 (see paragraph 15), Member States affirmed that the answers received had enabled correct assessment of VAT in the cases concerned. 
Države članice so v odgovorih na vprašanja Sodišča o spremljanju izbranih izmenjav (glej odstavek 15) potrdile, da so prejeti odgovori v zadevnih primerih omogočili pravilno odmero DDV.
Evaluation shows cooperation can lead to results 44. 
Ocenjevanje kaže, da sodelovanje lahko privede do rezultatov 44.
Currently there is no legal requirement to assess the results of administrative cooperation but a few Member States have conducted such exercises. 
Trenutno ni nobene pravne zahteve za ocenjevanje rezultatov upravnega sodelovanja, vendar je nekaj držav članic to vseeno izvedlo.
These evaluations demonstrate the benefits of administrative cooperation. 
Iz teh ocen so razvidne koristi upravnega sodelovanja.
25.1.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/13 45. 
25.1.2008 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 20/13 45.
In France, though the financial impact of the cooperation has not been evaluated, an analysis by the competent authorities showed that 34 % of replies received in 2005 confirmed or revealed the existence of fraud in France or another Member State. 
Čeprav v Franciji finančni učinek sodelovanja ni bil ocenjen, je analiza, ki so jo izvedli pristojni organi, pokazala, da je 34 % odgovorov, prejetih v letu 2005, potrdilo ali razkrilo obstoj goljufije v Franciji ali drugi državi članici.
An evaluation by the CLO in Slovenia of 89 requests for administrative cooperation received by their authorities in 2005 showed that in the case of 21 requests, administrative enquiries resulted in the collection of additional VAT of approximately 1,5 million euro. 
Centralni urad za zvezo v Sloveniji je pripravil oceno 89 zahtevkov za upravno sodelovanje, ki so jih prejeli slovenski organi v letu 2005, in ta je pokazala, da je bil pri 21 zahtevkih zaradi upravnih poizvedb pobran dodaten DDV v vrednosti približno 1,5 milijona EUR.
An analysis made by the Polish CLO in 2006 showed that 713 exchanges of information on request led to the detection of 64 fraud cases. 
Analiza, ki jo je leta 2006 izvedel poljski centralni urad za zvezo, je pokazala, da je 713 izmenjav informacij na zahtevo privedlo do odkritja 64 primerov goljufij.
However, it was noted that there are some concerns with regard to the quality of information exchanged on suspected Missing Trader Fraud. 
Vendar je bilo ugotovljeno, da obstajajo določeni pomisleki glede kakovosti izmenjanih informacij pri sumu na neplačujoči gospodarski subjekt.
Germany reported to the SCAC in 2005 problems in obtaining sufficiently detailed information from other Member States to use in legal action before German courts. 
Leta 2005 je Nemčija Stalnemu odboru za upravno sodelovanje poročala, da je od drugih držav članic težko pridobiti dovolj podrobne informacije za uporabo v sodnih postopkih pred nemškimi sodišči.
The matter has been repeatedly discussed by the SCAC since and a supplementary questionnaire has been developed to tackle cases where more detailed information is needed for legal action in Member States. 
Stalni odbor za upravno sodelovanje je od takrat večkrat razpravljal o zadevi in pripravil dodaten vprašalnik za obravnavanje primerov, kjer so potrebne podrobnejše informacije za sodne postopke v državah članicah.
So far, however, Member States have not reached agreement about the circumstances in which this questionnaire should be used or the requirements for its use. 
Vendar se države članice doslej niso dogovorile o okoliščinah, v katerih bi se ta vprašalnik uporabljal, niti o zahtevah glede njegove uporabe.
Furthermore, there is no mechanism whereby the user of replies to requests for information give feedback on the usefulness of the information supplied. 
Poleg tega ni mehanizma, s katerim bi uporabnik odgovorov na zahtevke za informacije podal povratne informacije o koristnosti prejetih informacij.
Any possible shortcomings in the reply are not reported back and cannot be taken into account when dealing with further requests. 
O morebitnih pomanjkljivostih v odgovoru se ne poroča nazaj in jih zato ni mogoče upoštevati pri obravnavanju nadaljnjih zahtevkov.
Exchange of information without prior request 50. 
Izmenjava informacij brez predhodne zahteve 50.
Article 17 of the regulation provides for Member States to exchange information without prior request. 
Člen 17 uredbe predvideva izmenjavo informacij med državami članicami brez predhodne zahteve.
It specifies that each Member State should forward information to any other Member State concerned in three situations. 
Ta člen določa, da država članica posreduje informacije kateri koli drugi zadevni državi članici v treh primerih.
Firstly, where the effectiveness of the control system in the other Member State necessarily depends on the information provided by the Member State of origin; secondly, where there is a suspicion of a breach of VAT legislation in the other Member State; and thirdly, in cases which present a risk of tax loss (due to fraud or avoidance) in the other Member State. 
Prvič, kadar je uspešnost kontrolnega sistema v drugi državi članici nujno odvisna od informacij, ki jih zagotovi matična država članica, drugič, ko obstaja sum kršitve zakonodaje o DDV v drugi državi članici, in tretjič v primerih, ki predstavljajo tveganje izgube davka (zaradi goljufije ali izogibanja) v drugi državi članici.
This represents a very broad obligation. 
To predstavlja zelo široko obveznost.
Article 18, however, limits the obligation provided for in Article 17, stating that the Member States may determine by choice whether they will exchange certain categories of information without prior request. 
Vendar člen 18 omejuje obveznost iz člena 17, saj navaja, da se lahko države članice same odločijo, ali bodo izmenjale določene kategorije informacij brez predhodne zahteve.
Potential of sending information without prior request not sufficiently exploited 52. 
Možnost pošiljanja informacij brez predhodne zahteve ni dovolj izkoriščena 52.
In total, five categories with 13 subcategories of cases have been defined (1), where information can be forwarded by automatic exchange (2) or structured automatic exchange (3). 
Skupno je bilo opredeljenih pet kategorij s 13 podkategorijami primerov (1), ko se informacije lahko posredujejo prek avtomatične izmenjave (2) ali strukturirane avtomatične izmenjave(3).
These categories include, for example, information about VAT identification numbers allocated to taxable persons established in another Member State or about taxable persons who are (potential) missing traders but whose VAT identification number has not been cancelled. 
Te kategorije na primer zajemajo informacije o identifikacijskih številkah za DDV, dodeljenih davčnim zave-zancem s sedežem v drugi državi članici, ali o davčnih zavezancih, ki so (potencialni) neplačujoči gospodarski subjekti, vendar njihova identifikacijska številka za DDV ni bila preklicana.
The exchanges of information show great differences in the use of these categories by Member States. 
Izmenjave informacij kažejo velike razlike pri uporabi teh kategorij s strani držav članic.
Germany, for example, communicated to the Commission that it would participate in all categories, whilst France announced its participation only in a single subcategory. 
Nemčija je na primer Komisiji sporočila, da bo sodelovala pri vseh kategorijah, medtem ko je Francija napovedala svoje sodelovanje samo v eni sami podkate-goriji.
The statistics reported by Member States on these automatic exchanges of information without request are of poor quality. 
Statistični podatki o teh avtomatičnih izmenjavah informacij brez zahteve, ki so jih sporočile države članice, so slabe kakovosti.
Discrepancies mainly due to differing understandings of what constitutes a reportable event make it impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from the data provided. 
Zaradi razhajanj, do katerih prihaja v glavnem zaradi različnih razumevanj, kaj predstavlja dogodek, o katerem se poroča, je iz predloženih podatkov nemogoče izpeljati kakršne koli tehtne zaključke.
In addition to the exchanges of information in predefined categories, Article 19 of the regulation stipulates that Member States may forward to each other spontaneously any information that may help them to effect a correct assessment of VAT. 
Člen 19 uredbe določa, da si lahko države članice poleg izmenjav informacij v vnaprej opredeljenih kategorijah spontano posredujejo kakršne koli informacije, ki jim lahko pomagajo pri pravilni odmeri DDV.
An example for such cooperation is the European Carousel Network (Eurocanet) which was launched at Belgian initiative and receives Commission support through the European Anti-Fraud Office OLAF. 
Primer takega sodelovanja je omrežje European Carousel Network (Eurocanet), ki je začelo delovati na belgijsko pobudo, Komisija pa ga podpira prek Evropskega urada za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF).
The network aims to speed up information exchanges on a limited number of targeted companies which are suspected of being involved in missing trader fraud. 
Namen omrežja je pospešiti izmenjavo informacij pri omejenem številu ciljnih podjetij, za katera obstaja sum, da so vpletena v goljufije neplačujočega gospodarskega subjekta.
For this type of information exchange, in which not all Member States participate, the Commission has no access to collect statistical data. 
Za to vrsto izmenjave informacij, v kateri niso udeležene vse države članice, Komisija nima dostopa do zbiranja statističnih podatkov.
(1) See Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1925/2004 (OJ L 331, 5.11.2004, p. 
(1) Glej člena 3 in 4 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1925/2004 (UL L 331, 5.11.2004, str.
(2) Systematic communication of predefined information at pre-established regular intervals. 
(2) Sistematično sporočanje vnaprej opredeljenih informacij v vnaprej določenih rednih časovnih presledkih.
(3) Systematic communication of predefined information, as and when that information becomes available. 
(3) Sistematično sporočanje vnaprej opredeljenih informacij, če in ko je ta informacija na voljo.
C 20/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.1.2008 55. 
C 20/14 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 25.1.2008 55.
During the audit it was found that information forwarded without prior request was not always adequately used. 
Med revizijo je bilo ugotovljeno, da informacije, posredovane brez predhodne zahteve, niso bile vedno ustrezno uporabljene.
The Luxembourg CLO, for example, reported that they had repeatedly received requests for data that they had already provided spontaneously to other Member States. 
Centralni urad za zvezo v Luksemburgu je na primer poročal, da je vedno znova prejemal zahtevke za podatke, ki jih je že spontano predložil državam članicam.