natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Due to legal constraints, the Commission could not exclude economic operators for fraud or corruption committed before 2016 78 Debarment has acquired considerable importance in the European Union. This is because under the EU Public Procurement Directives, public contracts must not be awarded to economic operators who have been involved in criminal misconduct or found guilty of, among other things, corruption and fraud affecting the EU’s financial interests. 
Zaradi pravnih omejitev Komisija ni mogla izključiti gospodarskih subjektov zaradi goljufije ali korupcije, storjene pred letom 2016 78 Izključitev je v Evropski uniji dobila precejšen pomen, saj se v skladu z direktivami EU o javnem naročanju javna naročila ne smejo oddati gospodarskim subjektom, ki so bili udeleženi v kaznivem ravnanju ali spoznani za krive različnih kaznivih dejanj, med drugim tudi korupcije ali goljufije, ki škodi finančnim interesom EU.
33 79 The EU’s debarment system dates back to 2008. With effect from 1 January 2016, the Commission replaced the previous exclusion and early warning system with the EDES. 
79 EU je svoj sistem izključitve vzpostavila leta 2008, s 1. januarjem 2016 pa je prejšnji sistem za izključitev in zgodnje opozarjanje nadomestila s sistemom za zgodnje odkrivanje in izključitev.
While Directors-General may still request an early detection warning, for exclusion, the key new feature introduced with this system is a central panel, which assesses exclusion requests from the Director-General of the relevant DG and provides recommendations on exclusion and potential financial penalties. 
Generalni direktorji lahko sicer še vedno zahtevajo opozorilo v zvezi z zgodnjim odkrivanjem, vendar je za bila s tem sistemom za izključitev dodana ključna nova funkcija, in sicer osrednji odbor, ki ocenjuje zahteve generalnega direktorja ustreznega generalnega direktorata za izključitev ter pripravlja priporočila o izključitvi in morebitnih finančnih kaznih.
It is the Director-General who ultimately decides whether or not to exclude an economic operator. 80 All EU institutions and bodies may make an exclusion request based on information transmitted by administrative or criminal proceedings, reports by OLAF, the European Court of Auditors or the Commission’s internal auditors, decisions by the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank and Fund or other international organisations, or on cases of fraud or irregularity decided by national authorities under shared or by delegated entities under indirect management. 
32 80 Vse institucije in organi EU lahko zahtevo za izključitev predložijo na podlagi informacij, posredovanih v okviru upravnega ali kazenskega postopka, poročil urada OLAF, Evropskega računskega sodišča ali notranjih revizorjev Komisije ter sklepov Evropske centralne banke, Evropske investicijske banke in sklada ali drugih mednarodnih organizacij ali na podlagi primerov goljufije ali nepravilnosti, o katerih so pri deljenem upravljanju odločili nacionalni organi, pri posrednem upravljanju pa delegirani subjekti.
Audits by authorising officers or private-sector auditors are also a valuable source of information. 
Revizije, ki jih opravijo odredbodajalci ali revizorji zasebnega sektorja, so prav tako dragocen vir informacij.
Member State authorities have been granted access to exclusion decisions but are not obliged to take them into account in any shared management financing decision involving EU money. 
Organom držav članic je bil omogočen dostop do odločitev o izključitvi, vendar jim jih ni treba upoštevati pri sklepih o financiranju na področju deljenega upravljanja, ki vključuje sredstva EU.
81 Excluding an economic operator is a lengthy procedure. By 30 June 2018, i.e. two-and-a-half years after the EDES was introduced, the Commission as a whole had excluded 19 economic operators and published sanctions against eight. 
81 Izključitev gospodarskega subjekta je dolgotrajen postopek, Komisija kot celota je do 30. junija 2018, torej dve leti in pol po uvedbi sistema za zgodnje odkrivanje in izključitev, izključila 19 gospodarskih subjektov, proti štirim pa objavila sankcije.
Even though within the area of shared management, Member State authorities reported 820 suspected fraud cases within IMS and OLAF concluded around 60 investigations with recommendations in 2016 alone36, the Financial Regulation does not give the Commission any power to act if Member State authorities have not themselves initiated the exclusion of an unreliable economic operator. 
Čeprav so na področju deljenega upravljanja organi držav članic v sistemu za upravljanje nepravilnosti prijavili 820 primerov suma goljufije, OLAF pa je samo leta 2016 zaključil okoli 60 preiskav s priporočili,36 finančna uredba Komisiji ne daje nobenega pooblastila za ukrepanje, če izključitve nezanesljivega gospodarskega subjekta ne sprožijo organi držav članic sami.
Therefore, no requests for exclusion of national economic operators co-financed by ESI funds were made by any of the three main DGs managing this spending (REGIO, EMPL and AGRI). 
Zato nobeden od treh generalnih direktoratov, ki upravljajo to porabo (GD REGIO, GD EMPL in GD AGRI) ni podal zahtevka za izključitev nacionalnih gospodarskih subjektov, ki so prejeli sofinanciranje iz skladov ESI.
82 As regards exclusions for facts dating from before 2016, the main reasons for these were serious breaches of contractual provisions and grave professional misconduct. This is because the legislation at the time did not permit exclusion for fraud in the absence of a final judgment. 
82 Glavni razlogi za izključitve na podlagi dejstev pred letom 2016 so bili resne kršitve pogodbenih določb in hude poklicne napake, saj zakonodaja takrat ni dovoljevala izključitve zaradi goljufije brez pravnomočne sodbe.
To date, only two economic operators have been excluded for fraud or corruption, which limits the deterrent impact of this system. 
Doslej sta bila dva gospodarska subjekta izključena zaradi goljufije ali korupcije, kar omejuje odvračalni učinek, ki ga ima ta sistem.
34 83 The EDES system provides the possibility of recording the details of individuals who have control, or representative or decision-making powers, over fraudulent companies. However, only for facts dating from 2016 onwards does the legislation permit the exclusion of an economic operator where a person serving on its administrative, management or supervisory board, or with powers of representation, decision or control over it, is himself or herself also currently under exclusion. 
83 Sistem za zgodnje odkrivanje in izključitev omogoča beleženje podatkov o fizičnih osebah, ki imajo nadzor nad goljufivimi podjetji ali so pristojne za zastopanje ali odločanje, Vendar zakonodaja samo za dejstva po letu 2016 dovoljuje izključitev gospodarskega subjekta, kadar je izključena tudi oseba, ki je član njegovega upravnega odbora, uprave ali nadzornega odbor ali je pooblaščena za zastopanje, odločanje ali nadzor nad njim.
Previously, only economic operators that had a contractual relationship with the contracting authority/authorising officer could actually be excluded. 
Nekoč je bilo dejansko mogoče izključiti le gospodarske subjekte, ki so bili v pogodbenem odnosu z naročnikom/odredbodajalcem.
In the past, there have been cases where, by the time the possibility has arisen of excluding the economic operator concerned, the private individuals behind the fraudulent companies have already dissolved the company involved in the contractual relationship with the Commission and created a new one. 
V preteklosti so se pojavljali primeri, pri katerih so do takrat, ko se je pojavila možnost izključitve zadevnega gospodarskega subjekta, fizične osebe, ki so 36 Poročilo o zaščiti finančnih interesov za leto 2016, COM(2017) 383 final. 33 stale za goljufivimi podjetji, pogosto že razpustile podjetje, ki je bilo v pogodbenem odnosu s Komisijo, in ustanovile novo.
84 The World Bank and other international financial institutions have recently stepped up efforts to ensure that fraudulent economic operators are stopped and do not merely re-surface under different names (Box 5). 
84 Svetovna banka in druge mednarodne finančne institucije so nedavno stopnjevale prizadevanja, da bi goljufive gospodarske subjekte dokončno ustavile in se ti ne bi na novo pojavili z drugačnim imenom (okvir 5).
Box 5 The World Bank’s suspension and debarment system The World Bank uses a suspension and debarment system to fight corruption and fraud. 
Okvir 5 Sistem Svetovne banke za zamrznitev in izključitev Svetovna banka v boju proti korupciji in goljufijam uporablja sistem za zamrznitev in izključitev.
The World Bank can suspend and debar both companies and private individuals, thereby rendering them ineligible for new contracts for World Bank-financed projects. 
Zamrzne in izključi lahko tako podjetja kot tudi fizične osebe, ki se nato ne morejo potegovati za nove pogodbe za projekte, ki jih financira Svetovna banka.
All sanctions are published. 
Vse sankcije so objavljene.
In 2017, the World Bank temporarily suspended 22 firms and individuals and sanctioned 6037. As of January 2018, the debarment list contained 414 debarred companies and individuals38. The World Bank system has been in operation for more than ten years and, compared to the EDES, has fewer legal constraints. 
Svetovna banka je v letu 2017 zamrznila 22 podjetij in fizičnih oseb, sankcionirala pa 60.37 Januarja 2018 je bilo na seznamu izključenih subjektov 414 izključenih podjetij in fizičnih oseb.38 Sistem Svetovne banke deluje že več kot deset let in ima v primerjavi s sistemom za zgodnje odkrivanje in izključitev manj pravnih omejitev.
For example, there is no external judicial review of World Bank decisions, and publication conditions are less strict. 
Tako na primer ni zunanjega sodnega nadzora nad odločitvami Svetovne banke, pogoji objave pa so manj strogi.
Member States do not fully exploit the potential of Arachne in preventing fraud 85 ARACHNE could help Member State authorities identify risky economic operators when performing checks before or after payment occurs. 
Države članice ne izkoriščajo celotnega potenciala orodja ARACHNE za preprečevanje goljufij 85 Organi držav članic bi si lahko z orodjem ARACHNE pomagali pri prepoznavanju tveganih gospodarskih subjektov, ko jih preverjajo pred izvedbo plačila ali po njej.
The usefulness of this tool depends on 37 World Bank Annual Update, Integrity Vice-Presidency, p. 
Glede na to je Sodišče v svojem poročilu za leto 2015 Komisiji in državam članicam 37 World Bank Annual Update, Integrity Vice-Presidency, str.
Therefore, in our 2015 report we recommended the Commission and Member States to further promote the use of such data-mining tools. 
34 priporočilo, naj dodatno spodbujajo uporabo takih orodij za podatkovno rudarjenje.
Three years after our recommendation ARACHNE is still used for around 170 out of the total number of 429 operational programmes in 21 Member States (Figure 8). 
Tri leta po priporočilu Sodišča se ARACHNE še vedno uporablja pri okoli 170 od skupno 429 operativnih programov v 21 državah članicah (slika 8).
87 This system does not currently offer any way of identifying whether an economic operator has been excluded within the Commission’s system. 
87 S tem sistemom trenutno ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali je bil gospodarski subjekt izključen v sistemu Komisije.
Beyond Cohesion, fund managers in other EU spending areas do not have similar fraud risk scoring tools at their disposal. 
Upravitelji skladov na drugih področjih porabe EU razen kohezije nimajo na razpolago nobenega podobnega orodja za oceno tveganja goljufij.
Figure 8 – Use of ARACHNE in Member States* 36 *Number of 2014-2020 Operational Programmes for which ARACHNE is used in each Member State as a percentage of that country’s total number of 2014-2020 Operational Programmes. 
Slika 8 – Uporaba orodja ARACHNE v državah članicah* * Število operativnih programov za obdobje 2014–2020, pri katerih se v posamezni državi članici uporablja orodje ARACHNE, kot odstotni delež števila vseh operativnih programov za obdobje 2014–2020 v tej državi.
Moreover, exclusion applies only to spending managed directly and indirectly by the Commission, which means that excluded companies may, for example, continue receiving Cohesion funds. 
Poleg tega izključitev velja le za porabo, ki jo neposredno ali posredno upravlja Komisija, kar pomeni, da lahko izključena podjetja na primer še naprej prejemajo sredstva iz Kohezijskega sklada.
Although ARACHNE has the potential to be an effective fraud prevention tool, the system still contains only a limited amount of data 5 years after being launched. 
ARACHNE ima potencial, da postane uspešno orodje za preprečevanje goljufij, vendar sistem pet let po uvedbi še vedno vsebuje le malo podatkov.
OLAF’s administrative investigations have led to prosecution in fewer than half of cases, and resulted in recovery of less than a third of the funds 89 Under the current EU legal framework, the main responsibility for enforcing anti-fraud legislation lies with the Member States, as only national authorities can conduct a criminal investigation and charge a person with a crime. 
35 Upravne preiskave urada OLAF so pripeljale do pregona v manj kot polovici primerov, na njihovi podlagi pa je bila izterjana manj kot tretjina sredstev 89 V sedanjem pravnem okviru EU so za izvrševanje zakonodaje za boj proti goljufijam odgovorne predvsem države članice, saj lahko le nacionalni organi opravijo kazensko preiskavo in ljudi obtožijo kaznivih dejanj.
Responsibility for recovering fraudulently obtained EU money depends on the EU spending area. 
Odgovornost za izterjavo sredstev EU, pridobljenih z goljufijo, je odvisna od področja porabe EU.
90 OLAF is currently the only body with independent investigative powers at EU level. 
90 OLAF je trenutno edini organ z neodvisnimi preiskovalnimi pooblastili na ravni EU.
91 Judicial recommendations are addressed to competent national judicial authorities and mainly contain a proposal to open a criminal investigation against the person suspected (by OLAF) of having committed fraud or to continue the criminal investigation in the light of OLAF's findings and recommendations. 
91 Sodna priporočila so naslovljena na pristojne nacionalne sodne organe, večinoma pa vsebujejo predlog za sprožitev kazenske preiskave proti osebi, za katero OLAF sumi, da je zagrešila goljufijo, ali za nadaljevanje kazenske preiskave ob upoštevanju ugotovitev in priporočil urada OLAF.
92 Financial recommendations are addressed to the responsible DGs and consist of a proposal to recover a certain amount of money or to prevent money from being spent unduly. 
92 Finančna priporočila so naslovljena na odgovorne generalne direktorate, vsebujejo pa predlog za izterjavo določenih zneskov ali preprečitev neupravičene porabe sredstev.
40 Article 1(1) 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) No074/1999. 
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. 1073/1999 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta in Uredbe Sveta (Euratom) št.
41 Between 2012 and 2016, in around 21 % of the investigations it closed with a financial recommendation, OLAF simultaneously issued a judicial recommendation. 
41 Med letoma 2012 in 2016 je OLAF pri okoli 21 % preiskav, ki jih je zaključil s finančnim priporočilom, hkrati izdal sodno priporočilo.
42 In addition to the external investigations, OLAF is also entitled to conduct internal investigations within EU institutions. 
42 OLAF ima poleg zunanjih preiskav pravico izvajati tudi notranje preiskave v institucijah EU.
We did not evaluate this particular OLAF task in the course of this audit. 
Te naloge Urada Sodišče v tej reviziji ni ocenilo.
For administrative recommendations, see paragraph 70. 
Za upravna priporočila glej odstavek 72.
38 93 In EU spending areas under direct or indirect management, the DG which previously made the decision to make the payment concerned decides for itself whether to recover money from a fraudulent beneficiary. For EU spending areas under shared management, the responsible DG recovers the money from the Member State concerned through financial corrections. 
36 prejemnika izterjal sredstva. Na področjih porabe EU pod deljenim upravljanjem odgovorni generalni direktorat sredstva izterja od države članice, in sicer s finančnimi popravki, za izterjavo sredstev EU od dejanskega upravičenca pa so nato odgovorni nacionalni organi.
In this section, we examine what impact OLAF’s administrative investigations have on the prosecution of fraudsters and on the administrative procedure to recover fraudulently spent EU money. 
V tem razdelku je Sodišče preučilo, kakšen učinek imajo upravne preiskave urada OLAF na pregon goljufov in upravni postopek za izterjavo goljufivo porabljenih sredstev EU.
The current fraud investigation system has inherent weaknesses 94 Between 2009 and 2016, OLAF issued a total of 541 judicial recommendations. 
Sedanji sistem za preiskovanje goljufij ima inherentne slabosti 94 OLAF je med letoma 2009 in 2016 izdal skupaj 541 sodnih priporočil.
To date, Member State authorities have taken decisions on 308 of these recommendations, bringing indictments in 137 cases (44.5 %) and dismissing 171 cases (55.5 %). 
Doslej so organi držav članic sprejeli odločitve o 308 priporočilih, pri čemer so v 137 primerih (44,5 %) vložili obtožnico, 171 primerov (55,5 %) pa zavrgli.
No information is available on the number of convictions. 
Informacije o številu obsodb niso na voljo.
To date, Member State judicial authorities have made approximately 17 indictments per year as a result of cases initiated by OLAF (Figure 9). 
Doslej so sodni organi držav članic kot posledica primerov, ki jih sproži OLAF, vložili približno 17 obtožnic na leto (slika 9).
Figure 9 – OLAF’s judicial recommendations in 2009-2016 No decision taken 233 308 43% 57% Decision taken Dismissals 55.5 % I ndictments 44.5 % 171 137 Source: The OLAF Report 2016, p. 
Slika 9 – Sodna priporočila urada OLAF v obdobju 2009–2016 Brez odločitve Odločitev sprejeta 233 308 43% 57% Zavrnitve 171 55,5 % Obtožnice 44,5 % 137 Vir: Poročilo urada OLAF za leto 2016, str.
33. 95 Given the unavailability of reliable data on the total number of EU fraud cases prosecuted in the Member States, we cannot provide any precise indication of the overall share of indictments initiated by national prosecutors as a result of OLAF’s judicial 
33 95 Ker ni zanesljivih podatkov o skupnem številu primerov goljufij, proti katerim so države članice sprožile pregon, Sodišče ne more natančno navesti, kolikšen je delež obtožnic, ki so jih državni tožilci vložili zaradi sodnih priporočil urada OLAF.
39 recommendations. Publicly available information and information provided to us by the national authorities we visited shows that OLAF judicial recommendations which have led to indictment account for a small proportion of the total number of indictments by national public prosecutors in relation to fraud in EU spending cases (Box 6). 
Javno dostopne informacije in informacije, ki so jih Sodišču poslali obiskani nacionalni organi, so pokazale, da sodna priporočila urada, ki so vodila do obtožnic, pomenijo majhen delež skupnega števila obtožnic, ki so jih državni tožilci vložili v zvezi z goljufijami v primerih porabe EU (okvir 6).
Box 6 Prosecution of fraud involving EU money in five Member States In Poland, 446 indictments and 50 conditional dismissals were issued in the period 2013-2016 (i.e. 124 indictments per year). 
37 Okvir 6 Pregon goljufij v zvezi s sredstvi EU v petih državah članicah Na Poljskem je bilo v obdobju 2013–2016 izdanih 446 obtožnic in 50 pogojnih zavrnitev (tj. 124 obtožnic na leto).
In Bulgaria in 2016, 72 persons were charged with fraud involving EU money, from 67 cases. 
V Bolgariji je bilo leta 2016 goljufije v zvezi s sredstvi EU v 67 primerih obtoženih 72 oseb.
In Estonia in 2016, 50 individuals and 22 legal persons were charged with fraud in EU spending, from 15 cases. 
V Estoniji je bilo leta 2016 goljufije v zvezi s sredstvi EU v 15 primerih obtoženih 50 fizičnih in 22 pravnih oseb.
In Hungary, according to the Ministry of Interior’s crime statistics, 18 indictments were initiated in 2013, 16 in 2014, 6 in 2015, 7 in 2016 and 1 in 2017 (a total of 48 between 2013-2017)43. In Romania, prosecutors issued 30 indictments in 2016, arising from 39 cases previously investigated by DLAF44. As a result, 115 individuals and 47 legal entities were sent to trial and, in four cases, a total of six agreements of guilt recognition were concluded. 
Na Madžarskem je bilo po statističnih podatkih ministrstva za notranje zadeve o kaznivih dejanjih v obdobju 2013–2017 skupaj vloženih 48 obtožnic, in sicer 18 leta 2013, 16 leta 2014, 6 leta 2015, 7 leta 2016 in 1 leta 2017.43 V Romuniji so tožilci leta 2016 vložili 30 obtožnic v 39 primerih, ki jih je predhodno preiskal DLAF.44 Posledično je bilo na sodišču obravnavanih 115 fizičnih in 47 pravnih oseb, v štirih primerih pa je bilo skupaj sklenjenih šest sporazumov o priznanju krivde.
96 Figure 9 shows that more than half of the cases where the decision was taken by the Member State were dismissed. 
96 Iz slike 9 je razvidno, da je bila zavrnjena več kot polovica primerov, v katerih je odločitev sprejela država članica.
According to OLAF’s own analysis of the information collected by Member States on judicial recommendations, the main reasons for dismissal were (Figure 10): o o 43 44 evidence initially collected by OLAF or later by the national investigative authority considered insufficient for prosecution (56 %); action investigated by OLAF not considered a criminal offence under national law (22 %); https://bsr.bm.hu/SitePages/Nyitolap.aspx accessed on 15 February 2018. 
OLAF je z analizo informacij, ki so jih o sodnih priporočilih zbrale države članice, ugotovil glavne razloge za zavrnitev (slika 10), in sicer: o dokazi, ki jih je sprva zbral OLAF ali pozneje nacionalni preiskovalni organ, niso zadoščali za pregon (56 %); o dejanje, ki ga je preiskoval OLAF, v nacionalnem pravu ne velja za kaznivo dejanje (22 %); o zastaralni rok (tj. časovna omejitev za sprožitev kazenskega postopka) po nacionalnem pravu je potekel (14 %).45 43 https://bsr.bm.hu/SitePages/Nyitolap.aspx, dostop 15. februarja 2018.
The Fight Against Fraud Department (DLAF) is a Romanian national authority with investigative powers, responsible for protecting the EU’s financial interests in that country. 
44 Urad za boj proti goljufijam (DLAF) je romunski nacionalni organ s preiskovalnimi pooblastili, ki je odgovoren za zaščito finančnih interesov EU v državi.
See statistics from DLAF’s 2016 annual report, p. 
Glej statistične podatke iz letnega poročila urada DLAF za leto 2016, str.
Figure 10 – Main reasons for dismissal Source: Analysis of Member States’ follow-up of OLAF’s judicial recommendations issued between January 2008 and December 2015; page 1. 
45 Analiza nadaljnjih ukrepov držav članic po sodnih priporočilih urada OLAF, izdanih med januarjem 2008 in decembrom 2015, str. 1.
97 As indicated above, in 36 % of cases, either Member State authorities did not regard the crime identified by OLAF as a criminal offence under national law, or the time limit for criminal proceedings under national law had elapsed. 
Slika 10 – Glavni razlogi za zavrnitev Vir: Analiza nadaljnjih ukrepov držav članic po sodnih priporočilih urada OLAF, izdanih med januarjem 2008 in decembrom 2015, stran 1 97 Kot je navedeno zgoraj, v 36 % primerov prekršek, ki ga je ugotovil OLAF, v nacionalnem pravu ni veljal za kaznivo dejanje, ali pa je potekla časovna omejitev za kazenski pregon v skladu z nacionalnim pravom.