natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission has already taken several initiatives to support and improve the administrative cooperation between the EU Member States: Ń a secured electronic communication channel for information exchanges between local offices in different Member States will be available from the end of 2007, in order to support decentralised communications, Ń extensive guidelines for the request forms have been made available to the Member States and new electronic forms in XML format are being developed and will be used from the beginning of 2008, Ń Fiscalis project groups are currently discussing how to set up more structured types of exchange of information for specific cases, e.g. with regard to second hand cars and importations, Ń the Commission has set up the multilateral controls (MLC) platform, a permanent forum for promoting and evaluating MLCs and assuring the exchange of best practises relating to MLCs, Ń the Commission has made detailed instructions and guidelines for the communication of the statistics concerning administrative cooperation, in order to obtain a better overview of the functioning of the administrative cooperation, Ń the Commission has suggested the introduction of a feedback mechanism, which could enhance the motivation for the exchange of (spontaneous) information. 
105.–107. Komisija je sprejela več pobud za podporo in izboljšanje upravnega sodelovanja med državami članicami EU: — Zavarovan kanal za elektronske komunikacije za izmenjavo informacij med lokalnimi uradi v različnih državah članicah bo na voljo od konca leta 2007 dalje in bo podpiral decentralizirano komunikacijo. — Države članice imajo na voljo obširne smernice za obrazce za zahtevo in razvijajo se novi elektronski obrazci v obliki XML, ki bodo v uporabi od začetka leta 2008 dalje. — Projektne skupine Fiscalis trenutno razpravljajo, kako vzpostavitvi bolj strukturirane vrste izmenjave informacij za posebne primere, npr. glede rabljenih avtomobilov in uvoza. — Komisija je vzpostavila platformo večstranskih kontrol (MLC), stalnega foruma za spodbujanje in vrednotenje MLC in zagotavljanja izmenjave najboljše prakse v zvezi z MLC. — Komisija je pripravila podrobna navodila in smernice za sporočanje statističnih podatkov o upravnem sodelovanju, da bi imela boljši pregled delovanja upravnega sodelovanja. — Komisija je predlagala uvedbo mehanizma povratnih informacij, ki bi lahko okrepil motivacijo za izmenjavo (brez zahtevka) informacij.
Member States have agreed to further explore this idea. 
Države članice so se dogovorile, da bodo to zamisel nadalje raziskale.
This will be done in 2008, Ń the Commission will publish an evaluation of the administrative cooperation in the field of VAT in 2008. 
To bo narejeno v letu 2008. — Komisija bo objavila oceno upravnega sodelovanja na področju DDV v letu 2008.
This evaluation will also contain an analysis of the functioning of the national CLO structures in the EU Member States. 
Ta ocena bo vsebovala tudi analizo delovanja nacionalnih struktur centralnih uradov za zvezo v državah članicah EU.
With regard to VIES, an agreement was reached in June 2007 to clarify the understanding of the start date and cessation date of taxable personsŐ activities in VIES, so that this information is more accurate and complete. 
Glede VIES je bil junija 2007 dosežen sporazum, da se razjasni razumevanje datuma začetka in datuma prenehanja dejavnosti davčnega zavezanca v VIES, in tako bodo te informacije bolj točne in popolne.
An open interface has been made available, allowing the automatic verification of VAT numbers by computer systems, and the work on the modernisation of VIES is ongoing. 
Na voljo je odprti vmesnik, ki omogoča, da računalniški sistemi samodejno preverjajo veljavnost številke DDV, poteka pa tudi delo na posodabljanju VIES.
The Commission will continue to press for an agreement between Member States about the cancellation of VAT numbers. 
Komisija bo še naprej pritiskala na države članice, da se dogovorijo o preklicu številk DDV.
C 20/26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.1.2008 110. 
C 20/26 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 25.1.2008 110.
The Commission has launched a study to obtain a solid estimate on the amount of tax fraud in the EU Member States. 
Komisija je sprožila študijo, da bi dobila zanesljivo oceno zneska davčnih goljufij v državah članicah EU.
A first result on the estimates on VAT fraud should be available by the end of 2007. 
Prvi rezultat ocen goljufij na področju DDV naj bi bil na voljo konec leta 2007.
A comprehensive legal framework needs to be created to ensure efficient cross-border prosecution. 
Za zagotavljanje učinkovitega čezmejnega pregona je treba izdelati celovit pravni okvir.
Therefore, the Commission has proposed specific measures such as the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the criminal law protection of the CommunityŐs financial interests, COM(2001) 272, as well as the regulation on mutual administrative assistance for the protection of the financial interests of the European Community against fraud and any other illegal activities, COM(2006) 473. 
Zato je Komisija predlagala posebne ukrepe, kot sta direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o kazenskopravni zaščiti finančnih interesov Skupnosti, COM(2001) 272, in uredba o vzajemni upravni pomoči za zaščito finančnih interesov Evropske skupnosti pred goljufijami in drugimi nezakonitimi dejavnostmi, COM(2006) 473.
This last, which incorporates in large measure the European Parliament recommendation of 25 May 2005, does not cover prosecution as such but measures ensuring the interface with the judicial follow-up and the support of recovery. 
Uredba, ki v glavnem vključuje ukrepe priporočila Evropskega parlamenta z dne 25. maja 2005, ne zajema pregona kot takega, ampak ukrepe, ki zagotavljajo vmesnik za sodno spremljanje in podporo izterjave.
The Commission notes the CourtŐs recommendations on simplification and consolidation of anti-fraud legislation. The Commission will examine the possibility of consolidating anti-fraud legislation under Article 280 EC Treaty. 
Komisija bo proučila možnost prečiščenja zakonodaje na področju boja proti goljufijam na podlagi člena 280 Pogodbe ES.
18.6.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/1 IV (Notices) NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES COURT OF AUDITORS SPECIAL REPORT No 3/2008 The European Union Solidarity Fund: how rapid, efficient and flexible is it? 
18.6.2008 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 153/1 IV (Informacije) INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ IN ORGANOV EVROPSKE UNIJE RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE POSEBNO POROČILO št. 3/2008 Kako hiter, učinkovit in fleksibilen je Solidarnostni sklad Evropske unije?
Together with the CommissionŐs replies (pursuant to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, EC) (2008/C 153/01) 
Z odgovori Komisije (v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 248(4) ES) (2008/C 153/01)
C 153/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY ...................................................... INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 
C 153/2 SL Uradni list Evropske unije KAZALO POVZETEK ................................................................
Rapidity............................................................... 
UVOD....................................................................
What factors account for variation in time taken for obtaining aid from the Fund? Can the time actually taken be regarded as showing that the Fund provided a rapid responsetotheapplicants? ............................................ Efficiency.............................................................. 
Kateri dejavniki so odgovorni za časovne razlike pri pridobivanju pomoči iz sklada? Ali je mogoče trditi, da dejansko porabljeni čas kaže, da je sklad prosilcem zagotovil hiterodziv? ........................................................ Učinkovitost ...........................................................
Flexibility.............................................................. 
Fleksibilnost ...........................................................
AreapplicantssatisfiedwiththeFund?....................................... 
18.6.2008 Ali načelo izračunavanja nepovratnih sredstev ogroža pravično obravnavanje nepo-vratnihsredstev,odobrenihzaregionalnenesreče? .........................
13 TheCommissionŐsreplies .............................................................. 
39–40 11 41 11 42–47 12 Priloga–VlogezaSolidarnostniskladEUodleta2002 .........................................
15 Paragraph Page I-VI 3 1-5 3 6-8 4 9-41 4 9-26 4 9-19 4 20-22 7 23-26 7 27-31 9 32-40 9 34-38 9 
15 Odstavek Stran I–VI 3 1–5 3 6–8 4 9–41 4 9–26 4 9–19 4 20–22 7 23–26 7 27–31 9 32–40 9 34–38 9
18.6.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. The European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set up in 2002 in response to the serious floods in Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and France. 
18.6.2008 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 153/3 POVZETEK I. Solidarnostni sklad Evropske unije (SSEU) je bil ustanovljen leta 2002 v odgovor na resne poplave v Nemčiji, Avstriji, na Češkem in v Franciji.
The Fund was intended to demonstrate solidarity with Member States suffering as a result of natural disasters. 
Namen sklada je bilo izkazovanje solidarnosti z državami članicami, ki trpijo zaradi posledic naravnih nesreč.
Up to the end of 2006 it had provided aid of over EUR 1 billion in respect of 23 disasters. 
Do konca leta 2006 je sklad zagotovil pomoč v višini več kot 1 milijarde EUR za 23 nesreč.
The Council wanted the EUSF to be rapid, efficient and flexible in providing assistance. 
Svet je želel, da bi bil SSEU pri zagotavljanju pomoči hiter, učinkovit in fleksibilen.
This report examines whether the Fund had achieved these aims and whether the recipient states were satisfied with the Fund. 
To poročilo preučuje, ali je sklad dosegel te cilje in ali so bile države prejemnice z njim zadovoljne.
The Court reviewed all the applications sent to the Fund up to the end of 2006 and found that the Fund did not provide a rapid response. 
Sodišče je preučilo vse vloge, ki so bile skladu poslane do konca leta 2006, in ugotovilo, da sklad ni zagotavljal hitrega odziva.
This is confirmed by a survey carried out by the Court. 
To potrjuje tudi raziskovalna anketa, ki jo je izvedlo Sodišče.
The time taken between the disaster and the payment was usually about one year. 
Med nesrečo in izplačilom je običajno preteklo približno leto dni.
The direct costs associated with managing the Fund by the Commission are low and so the Court concludes that the Fund is working efficiently. 
Neposredni stroški Komisijinega upravljanja sklada so nizki, zato je Sodišče prišlo do zaključka, da sklad posluje učinkovito.
As regards flexibility, the Court found no cases where the Fund showed a lack of flexibility in its treatment of applications for aid. 
V zvezi s fleksibilnostjo ni Sodišče našlo nobenih primerov, kjer bi sklad pri svojem obravnavanju vlog za pomoč pokazal pomanjkanje fleksibilnosti.
V. However despite the protracted process involved in obtaining aid from the Fund, states that received money were satisfied with the Fund. 
V. Toda kljub dolgotrajnemu procesu pridobivanja pomoči iz sklada so bile države, ki so prejele sredstva, z njim zadovoljne.
The Fund has therefore, in respect of the states that received aid, met its underlying objective of demonstrating solidarity with Member States in times of disaster. 
Torej je sklad v zvezi z državami, ki so prejele pomoč, izpolnil svoj osnovni cilj izkazovanja solidarnosti z državami članicami v času nesreč.
The Court recommends that the Commission provide detailed guidance to applicants and advice on how to achieve the prompt submission of information in order to ensure that delays in the processing of applications are avoided. 
Sodišče priporoča, da Komisija prosilcem zagotovi podrobne smernice in nasvete o tem, kako naj hitro predložijo informacije, da ne bo prihajalo do zamud pri obravnavanju vlog.
C 153/3 INTRODUCTION 1. 
UVOD 1.
In summer 2002 there were serious floods in Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and France. 
Poleti leta 2002 je prišlo do resnih poplav v Nemčiji, Avstriji, na Češkem in v Franciji.
The flooding was so severe that the economies in the regions affected ground to a halt for a while. 
Poplave so bile tako hude, da je gospodarstvo v prizadetih regijah za nekaj časa zastalo.
The European Community reacted swiftly and created the European Union Solidarity Fund, hereafter called the Fund, in November 2002 (1). 
Evropska skupnost se je naglo odzvala in novembra 2002 ustanovila Solidarnostni sklad Evropske unije, v nadaljnjem besedilu sklad (1).
The Fund was created to enable the Community to provide rapid, efficient and flexible financial aid in emergency situations related to natural disasters. 
Sklad je bil ustanovljen, da bi Skupnosti omogočil zagotavljanje hitre, učinkovite in fleksibilne finančne pomoči v izrednih razmerah, povezanih z naravnimi nesrečami.
It is not designed to meet all the costs linked to a disaster immediately but mainly to reimburse a part of those connected with ensuring the restoration of vital services and provision of temporary accommodation. 
Ni namenjen takojšnji povrnitvi vseh stroškov, povezanih z nesrečo, temveč predvsem povrnitvi dela tistih stroškov, ki so povezani s ponovno vzpostavitvijo osnovnih storitev in zagotavljanjem začasne nastanitve.
The underlying aim of the Fund is to demonstrate solidarity with those states suffering as a result of natural disasters. 
Osnovni namen sklada je izkazovanje solidarnosti s tistimi državami, ki trpijo zaradi posledic naravnih nesreč.
With an annual budget of EUR 1 billion, the Fund intervenes (2): (a) if a Member or Accession State is affected by a major disaster, i.e. a natural disaster resulting in a damage estimated at more than 0,6 % of gross national income or more than EUR 3 billion if gross national income of the disaster affected country is above EUR 500 billion (2002 prices); (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3). 
Sklad ima letni proračun 1 milijarde EUR, posreduje pa (2): (a) če državo članico ali državo pristopnico prizadene večja nesreča, tj. naravna nesreča, ki povzroči škodo, ocenjeno na več kot 0,6 % bruto nacionalnega dohodka oziroma na več kot 3 milijarde EUR, če je bruto nacionalni dohodek prizadete države višji od 500 milijard EUR (po cenah iz leta 2002); (1) Uredba Sveta (ES) št.
The grant rate for all disasters is calculated in relation to the total direct damage suffered by the state. 
3. glede na skupno neposredno škodo, ki jo je utrpela država.
For major disasters the aid comprises two rates: for damage which is less than the EUR 3 billion the rate of aid is 2,5 % and for damage above this amount the rate is 6 %. 
Pri večjih nesrečah se za pomoč uporabljata dve stopnji: pri škodi, ki je nižja od 3 milijard, znaša stopnja pomoči 2,5 %, pri škodi, ki je višja od tega zneska, pa znaša stopnja 6 %.
For regional and neighbouring disasters there is a single rate of 2,5 % of the total direct damage. 
Pri regionalnih nesrečah in nesrečah v sosedstvu se za skupno neposredno škodo uporablja enotna stopnja 2,5 %.
The fund is operated by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy (Regional Policy DG). 
Sklad upravlja Generalni direktorat za regionalno politiko (GD za regionalno politiko).
From the start of the Fund to the end of 2006 Regional Policy DG received 41 applications for aid. 
Ta je od ustanovitve sklada do konca leta 2006 prejel 41 vlog za pomoč.
Nearly half of the applications for aid were connected with flooding disasters. 
Pri skoraj polovici vlog za pomoč je šlo za nesreče, povezane s poplavami.
See Table 1 for details of the different types of disasters covered by all the applications. 
V tabeli 1 so podrobnosti o različnih vrstah nesreč, ki jih zajema celota vlog.
C 153/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 18.6.2008 Type of disaster Flooding Forestfires Storm Earthquake Oilspill Adverse weather Volcanic eruption Explosion Total In year 2002 2003 2004 2005 Table 1 Numbers of different types of disaster (in aid application) Total 2006 4337219 0 3 7 0 1 11 000505 0 1 1 0 0 2 010001 010001 010001 000011 4 10 11 12 4 41 Source: Regional Policy DG records of applications. 
C 153/4 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 18.6.2008 Vrsta nesreče Poplava Gozdnipožar Neurje Potres Razlitje nafte Neugodne vremenske razmere Vulkanski izbruh Eksplozija Skupaj Tabela 1 Številčni podatki o različnih vrstah nesreč (po vlogah za pomoč) Leta 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Skupaj 4337219 0 3 7 0 1 11 000505 011002 010001 010001 010001 000011 Vir: Evidenca vlog v GD za regionalno politiko.
Overall, aid totalling EUR 1 084 million was granted during this period for 23 approved applications as shown in Table 2 (for a detailed list of cases see Annex I). 
Skupno je bila v tem obdobju odobrena pomoč v skupnem znesku 1 084 milijonov EUR za 23 odobrenih vlog, kot prikazuje tabela 2 (za podroben seznam primerov glej Prilogo I).
Table 2 Numbers of applications and amount of aid in the years 2002-2006 by category of emergency (b) Was the aid granted efficiently? (c) Was the FundŐs response to applicants flexible without compromising the principle of equitable treatment? (d) Are applicants satisfied with the Fund? 
Tabela 2 Število vlog in znesek pomoči v letih 2002–2006 po kategoriji izrednih razmer (b) (c) (d) 8. pregledov dokumentacije na Komisiji in analize zbranih podatkov.
In addition, the Court carried out an electronic survey by addressing questionnaires to the 37 applicants out of 41 in 17 states that had sought aid from the Fund (see Annex I). 
Poleg tega je Sodišče izvedlo raziskovalno anketo v elektronski obliki, saj je poslalo vprašalnike 37 od 41 prosilcev v 17 državah, ki so zaprosile za pomoč iz sklada (glej Prilogo I).
The Court received answers from 33 applicants from 15 Member States (89 % response rate). 
Sodišče je prejelo odgovore 33 prosilcev iz 15 držav članic (delež odgovorov je 89 %).
OBSERVATIONS Rapidity How much time did it take from the disaster to the payment of aid? 
OPAŽANJA Hitrost Koliko časa je preteklo med nesrečo in izplačilom pomoči?
The average time for the 23 successful applications to receive aid was 375 days. 
Povprečni čas, v katerem je bila prejeta pomoč pri 23 uspešnih vlogah, je bil 375 dni.
The Court examined the time taken for obtaining aid from the Fund by dividing the processing of applications into phases. 
Sodišče je preučilo čas za pridobivanje pomoči iz sklada tako, da je obravnavanje vlog razdelilo v faze.
There are five main phases in the administrative process from the date of disaster to the date of payment (see Figure 1). 
V upravnem procesu je med datumom nesreče in datumom izplačila pet glavnih faz (glej diagram 1).
Category of emergency Major natural disaster Neighbouring country Regional disaster Total Applications Applications Applications Amount of aid granted (million EUR) 961,3 1,6 121,1 1 084 received approved 15 14 2 2 24 7 41 23 rejected 1 0 17 (1) 18 (1) Includes two cases which were withdrawn rather than rejected. 
Ali so prosilci zadovoljni s skladom? Kategorija izrednih razmer Večja naravna nesreča Sosednja država Regionalna nesreča Skupaj Prejete Odobrene vloge vloge 15 14 2 2 24 7 41 23 Zavrnjene vloge 1 0 17 (1) 18 (1) Vključno s primeroma, v katerih sta bili vlogi umaknjeni in ne zavrnjeni.
Source: Regional Policy DG records of applications. 
Vir: Evidenca vlog v GD za regionalno politiko.
The objective of the audit was to assess the rapidity, efficiency and flexibility of the implementation of the Fund by the Commission since its inception. 
Cilj revizije je bil oceniti hitrost, učinkovitost in fleksibilnost Komisijinega vodenja sklada po njegovi vzpostavitvi.
This was done by reviewing all 41 aid applications received between the commencement of the Fund (2002) and the end of 2006 by the Regional Policy DG. 
To je bilo storjeno s pregledom vseh 41 vlog za pomoč, ki jih je GD za regionalno politiko prejel od nastanka sklada (2002) do konca leta 2006.
7. (a) The Court sought to answer the following questions: Did the Fund provide a rapid response to the applicants, i.e. states or regions affected by a disaster? 
7. Sodišče je skušalo odgovoriti na naslednja vprašanja: (a) Ali se je sklad hitro odzval na vloge prosilcev, torej držav ali regij, ki jih je prizadela nesreča?
Table 3 below shows the average time taken for each phase in the process. 
V tabeli 3 je prikazano povprečno trajanje vsake faze v procesu.
Whilst the average time for the first two phases refers to all 41 applications, the average time for the last three phases refers only to the 23 successful applications. 
Medtem ko povprečni čas za prvi fazi velja za vseh 41 vlog, se povprečni čas za zadnje tri faze nanaša samo na 23 uspešnih vlog.
Table 3 Average number of days per phase in the processing of applications for aid from the Fund Phase Average time in calendar days Application 66 Assessment 148 Budget 65 Grant decision 94 Payment 24 Source: Regional Policy DG records of applications. 
Tabela 3 Povprečno število dni na fazo pri obravnavanju vlog za pomoč iz sklada Do prejema vloge od države povprečno pretečeta približno dva meseca 12.
As shown in Table 3, the average duration of the application phase is 66 days. 
Kot kaže tabela 3, faza podajanja vloge povprečno traja 66 dni.
The Regulation governing the aid from the Fund requires that applications be sent to the Commission Ôas soon as possible and no later than ten weeks after the first damage caused by the disasterŐ (1). 
Po uredbi, ki ureja pomoč iz sklada, je treba vloge poslati Komisiji „čim prej in najpozneje v desetih tednih od nastanka prve škode, ki jo je povzročila nesreča“ (1).
However, in seven cases (almost in 17 % of cases) the application was submitted more than ten weeks after the disaster, hence after the deadline. 
Vendar je bila v sedmih primerih (v skoraj 17 % primerov) vloga predložena več kot deset tednov po nesreči, torej po izteku roka.
Apparently, the applicants need at least two months to prepare the application. 
Kaže, da upravičenci za pripravo vloge potrebujejo vsaj dva meseca.
The application takes such time because it is necessary to collect evidence to support the application including information on the proportion of the population affected by the disaster. 
Pripravljanje vloge traja tako dolgo, ker je treba zbrati dokazila v podporo vlogi, vključno z informacijami o deležu prebivalstva, ki ga je prizadela nesreča.
(1) Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002. 
(1) Člen 4(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 2012/2002.
C 153/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 18.6.2008 Almost five months on average for Commission to obtain missing information and assess the eligibility of the application. 13. 
C 153/6 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 18.6.2008 Komisija v povprečju potrebuje skoraj pet mesecev, da pridobi manjkajoče informacije in oceni upravičenost vloge 13.
As shown in Table 3, the assessment phase is the longest of all the phases in the processing of applications for aid from the Fund. 
Kot je prikazano v tabeli 3, je faza ocenjevanja najdaljša od vseh faz pri obravnavanju vlog za pomoč iz sklada.
It accounts for more than one third of the time from the date of disaster to the date of payment. 
Zajema več kot tretjino časa, ki preteče med datumom nesreče in datumom izplačila.
After receiving an application the Commission checks the eligibility of the application, which implies, in almost all cases, asking for additional information from the applicant state concerned (see Textbox 1). 
Ko Komisija prejme vlogo, preuči njeno upravičenost, kar skoraj v vseh primerih pomeni, da zadevno državo prosilko prosi za dodatne informacije (glej okvir 1).
This stage ends with a decision in principle whether or not to provide assistance. 
Ta faza se konča z načelno odločitvijo o tem, ali naj se pomoč zagotovi ali ne.
Textbox 1 Providing the Commission with the necessary information The time needed for the Commission to analyse an application and request additional information varies significantly. 
Okvir 1 Zagotavljanje potrebnih informacij Komisiji Čas, ki ga Komisija potrebuje, da analizira vlogo in zahteva dodatne informacije, je zelo različen.