natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, the number of cases is not the only indicator by which to judge OLAF’s performance. 
Število obravnavanih primerov ni edini kazalnik, po katerem bi lahko sodili o uspešnosti urada OLAF.
Follow-up recommendation 2 This recommendation is accepted. 
Priporočilo za nadaljnje ukrepanje 2 To priporočilo je sprejeto.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION 71. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE 71.
The Commission is of the view that OLAF has made considerable progress since the audit of 2005, in particular: Ū From 2005 until the introduction of the 4th edition of the Manual in December 2009, the previous version of the Manual served as a valuable tool for inves-tigators; Ū Cooperation with Eurojust has improved based on the agreement which entered into force in 2008 (see reply to paragraph 43); Ū The CMS, (and not the TMS,) was designed as a tool for case management and further developed; Ū The duration of investigations has remained stable in recent years even though cases have become more serious and complex. 
Komisija meni, da je urad OLAF od revizije leta 2005 bistveno napredoval, zlasti glede: — od leta 2005 do uvedbe četrte izdaje priročnika decembra 2009 je prejšnja različica priročnika služila kot koristno orodje za preiskave, — sodelovanje z Eurojustom se je na podlagi sporazuma, ki je začel veljati leta 2008, izboljšalo (glej odgovor na odstavek 43), — sistem vodenja primerov (in ne sistem upravljanja časa) je bil oblikovan kot orodje za vodenje primerov in se je nadalje razvijal, — trajanje preiskav se v zadnjih letih ni spreminjalo, čeprav so primeri postali bolj resni in zapleteni.
However, further efforts will be made to improve investigation planning and therefore contribute to reducing the duration of cases (see reply to paragraph 23). 
Toda nadaljnja prizadevanja bodo usmerjena v izboljšanje načrtovanja preiskav, s čimer se bo skrajšalo trajanje primerov (glej odgovor na odstavek 23).
Changes to improve the legal framework are underway and expected by the end of 2011. 
Spremembe za izboljšanje pravnega okvira se že pripravljajo in pričakuje se, da bodo končane do konca leta 2011.
These will consolidate the rights of persons concerned by an investigation and make them more visible. 
To bo še bolj uveljavilo pravice oseb, ki jih preiskava zadeva, postale pa bodo tudi bolj vidne.
They will also comprise provisions on a review procedure and on cooperation with Eurojust and Europol. 
Prav tako bodo vključevale tudi določbe o postopku revizije in o sodelovanju z Eurojustom in Europolom.
Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office 54 Follow-up recommendation 3 This recommendation is partially accepted. 
1/2005 o upravljanju Evropskega urada za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF) 54 Priporočilo za nadaljnje ukrepanje 3 To priporočilo je delno že sprejeto.
The reform of Regulation 1073/1999, which is currently underway, already addresses the issue of OLAF’s competences and procedures. 
1073/1999, ki trenutno poteka, že obravnava vprašanje pristojnosti in postopkov urada OLAF.
It will also consolidate relations between OLAF and the Member States’ competent authorities. 
Prav tako bo utrdila odnose med uradom OLAF in pristojnimi organi držav članic.
Furthermore, the reform foresees that Member States will designate an authority to ensure good cooperation with OLAF. 
V reformi se poleg tega predvideva, da bodo države članice imenovale organ za zagotovitev dobrega sodelovanja z uradom OLAF.
The Commission is generally in favour of an overall consolidation of the anti-fraud legislation. 
Komisija je na splošno naklonjena celoviti uskladitvi zakonodaje na področju boja proti goljufijam.
However, given that this is a very complex issue involving different pieces of legislation, it is not envisaged in the framework of the ongoing reform of Regulation 1073/1999, but is considered as a longer term objective. 
Ker pa je to zelo kompleksna zadeva, ki vključuje različne dele zakonodaje, ni predvidena v okviru trenutne reforme Uredbe št. 1073/1999, pač pa se obravnava kot dolgoročni cilj.
Follow-up recommendation 4 This recommendation is partially accepted. 
Priporočilo za nadaljnje ukrepanje 4 To priporočilo je delno že sprejeto.
The cooperation between OLAF and Eurojust has developed considerably in recent years, based on the new Eurojust Decision and the Practical Agreement on the Arrangement of Cooperation with Eurojust of September 2008. 
Sodelovanje med uradom OLAF in Eurojustom se je v zadnjih letih precej okrepilo in temelji na novem Sklepu o Eurojustu ter praktičnem dogovoru o načinu sodelovanja z Eurojustom iz septembra 2008.
The exchange of case-related information and the follow-up of ongoing cases have been facilitated and now occur on a more regular basis. 
Izmenjava informacij, ki so povezane s primeri, ter nadaljevanje tekočih primerov sta zdaj lažja in potekata bolj redno.
OLAF has already put in place procedures regarding the transmission of information regarding relevant cases to Eurojust6. 
Urad OLAF je že pripravil postopke v zvezi s predajo informacij o zadevnih primerih Eurojustu6.
Furthermore, in 2011 a new secure information exchange system will be installed in order to further facilitate information exchange. 
Poleg tega bo leta 2011 nameščen nov sistem za varno izmenjavo informacij, da bi se ta nadalje olajšala.
6 The transmission of information on cases to Eurojust has increased compared to 2008 and 2009. 
6 Predaja informacij o primerih Eurojustu se je v primerjavi z letoma 2008 in 2009 povečala.
In 2010 OLAF has already transmitted four cases to Eurojust; Eurojust has transmitted one case to OLAF. 
Urad OLAF je leta 2010 Eurojustu že predal štiri primere, Eurojust pa je uradu OLAF predal en primer.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION It is envisaged that the revised proposal to amend Regulation 1073/1999 will comprise provisions on cooperation with Eurojust, taking into consideration the respective scopes of competence of OLAF and Eurojust. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE Predvideno je, da bodo v spremenjeni predlog za spremembo Uredbe št. 1073/1999 vključene določbe o sodelovanju z Eurojustom ob upoštevanju zadevnih obsegov pristojnosti urada OLAF in Eurojusta.
Follow-up recommendation 5 This recommendation is accepted. 
Priporočilo za nadaljnje ukrepanje 5 To priporočilo je sprejeto.
OLAF already uses initial workplans and is committed to develop these further in order to improve its planning system. 
Urad OLAF že uporablja prvotne delovne načrte in je zavezan njihovemu nadaljnjemu razvijanju, da bi izboljšal svoj sistem načrtovanja.
These workplans are revised when necessary in the course of the continuous dialogue between investigators and management. 
Ti delovni načrti se po potrebi spreminjajo s stalnim dialogom med preiskovalci in upravo.
Depending on the different types of investigation, monitoring may take different forms. 
Spremljanje se lahko opravi v različnih oblikah, odvisno od vrste preiskave.
However, in all cases, both the initial workplan and its updates are already registered in the CMS in the form of reports or notes. 
V vseh primerih pa so tako prvotni delovni načrt kot njegove posodobitve že registrirane v sistemu vodenja primerov v obliki poročil ali opomb.
OLAF will work on further improvements in terms of investigation planning: Ū OLAF will ensure that initial workplans always include the objectives and scope of the investigation, and the estimated financial impact. 
Urad OLAF si bo še naprej prizadeval za izboljšanje načrtovanja preiskav: — urad OLAF bo poskrbel, da bodo prvotni delovni načrti vedno vsebovali cilje in obseg preiskave ter predviden finančni vpliv.
If it is possible at such an early stage, the plans will also include estimates of resources required, possible missions and a likely timeframe. Ū OLAF is committed to improving the monitoring and updating of workplans on a regular basis. Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office 
Če bo na tej začetni stopnji možno, bodo načrti vključevali tudi ocene potrebnih sredstev, možne misije in približen časovni okvir, — urad OLAF se zavezuje, da bo redno izboljševal spremljanje in posodabljanje delovnih načrtov. Posebno poročilo št. 2/2011 – Nadaljnje ukrepanje po Posebnem poročilu št.
55 Follow-up recommendation 6 This recommendation is partially accepted. 
55 Priporočilo za nadaljnje ukrepanje 6 To priporočilo je delno že sprejeto.
Monitoring long and complex investigations should be further improved. 
Nadalje je treba izboljšati spremljanje dolgih in zapletenih preiskav.
Within the existing governance framework, the Board delivers recommendations on fundamental decisions relating to the treatment of cases. 
V sedanjem okviru upravljanja priporočila za temeljne odločitve glede obravnave primerov izda odbor.
But it is the role of line management to examine investigation plans regularly, guide their development and take decisions in order to respect timeframes and speed up investigations wherever possible. 
Za redno pregledovanje načrtov preiskav, usmerjanje njihovega razvoja ter sprejemanje odločitev za zagotovitev spoštovanja časovnega okvira in pospeševanje preiskav v okviru možnosti pa je odgovorno vodstvo.
OLAF is of the opinion that an involvement of the Board in the monitoring process would be likely to result in a dilution of responsibility of OLAF’s line management. 
Urad OLAF meni, da bi se z vključitvijo odbora v postopek spremljanja lahko zgodilo, da bi se zmanjšale pristojnosti vodstva urada.
The duration of investigations is indeed a key performance indicator in terms of OLAF’s operational procedures. 
Trajanje preiskav je resnično ključni kazalnik uspešnosti, kar zadeva operativne postopke urada OLAF.
It is recognised as such in OLAF’s AMP. 
Kot tako je priznano v letnem načrtu upravljanja urada OLAF.
OLAF is alert as regards the duration of cases and is committed to continue monitoring developments in this field and to reduce duration wherever possible. 
Urad OLAF je pozoren na trajanje primerov in je zavezan stalnemu spremljanju napredka na tem področju ter skrajševanju trajanja, kadar je možno.
See also replies to paragraphs 27–29. 
Glej tudi odgovore na odstavke 27–29.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION 73. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE 73.
OLAF makes every possible effort to evaluate and quantify the financial impact of fraudulent activity, but the amounts to be recovered are not always possible to quantify at the outset. 
Urad OLAF si po najboljših močeh prizadeva oceniti in izmeriti finančni vpliv goljufij, vendar zneskov, ki jih je treba izterjati, ni vedno mogoče izmeriti na začetku.
Financial implications are taken into account for reasons of prioritisation, rather than serving as ‘objectives’ as such. 
Finančne posledice se upoštevajo zaradi določanja prednostnih nalog in ne zato, ker bi bile same po sebi cilj.
See also reply to paragraph 48. 
Glej tudi odgovor na odstavek 48.
The spending Commission Directorates-General (DGs) (as authorising DGs) and Member States’ services are responsible for financial recovery on the basis of OLAF’s findings. 
Generalni direktorati Komisije, ki so porabniki sredstev (kot pooblaščeni GD), in službe držav članic so odgovorni za finančne izterjave na podlagi ugotovitev urada OLAF.
Therefore, the amounts recovered are only an indicator in a broader context, i.e. with regard to stakeholders and, in particular, the spending Commission DGs and Member States. 
Zato so izterjani zneski kazalnik le v širšem okviru, tj. glede na zainteresirane strani in zlasti glede na generalne direktorate Komisije, ki so porabniki sredstev, in države članice.
Follow-up recommendation 7 This recommendation is partially accepted. 
Priporočilo za nadaljnje ukrepanje 7 To priporočilo je delno že sprejeto.
OLAF agrees that some improvements could be made to the current arrangements. 
OLAF se strinja, da bi se trenutna ureditev lahko nekoliko izboljšala.
However, substantial changes are not required. 
Vendar velike spremembe niso potrebne.
OLAF’s objective is to gather evidence both for and against and to identify amounts for recovery as accurately as possible. Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office 
Cilj urada OLAF je, da se zberejo dokazi za in proti ter tako čim natančneje določijo zneski za izterjavo. Posebno poročilo št. 2/2011 – Nadaljnje ukrepanje po Posebnem poročilu št.
56 Follow-up recommendation 8 This recommendation is partially accepted. 
56 Priporočilo za nadaljnje ukrepanje 8 To priporočilo je delno že sprejeto.
The CMS should be further developed for these purposes. 
Sistem vodenja primerov bi bilo treba za te namene nadalje razviti.
However, there will always be factors outside the CMS to be taken into account. 
Vendar bodo vedno obstajali dejavniki zunaj sistema vodenja primerov, ki jih je treba upoštevati.
OLAF will examine the possibilities for further improvement in its reporting, including in relation to comparisons over time. 
Urad OLAF bo proučil možnosti za nadaljnje izboljšanje svojega poročanja, vključno glede primerjave skozi čas.
The role of the Supervisory Committee will be further clarified by the reform of Regulation 1073/1999. 
Vloga nadzornega odbora bo nadalje razjasnjena s spremembo Uredbe št. 1073/1999.
The new procedure of informing the Supervisory Committee before transmitting a case to national judicial authorities entered into force with the 4th edition of the OLAF Manual in December 2009. 
Novi postopek obveščanja nadzornega odbora, preden se primeri predajo nacionalnim sodnim organom, je začel veljati s četrto izdajo priročnika urada OLAF decembra 2009.
The Supervisory Committee is informed five working days before the transmission of information to national judicial authorities. 
Nadzorni odbor se obvesti pet delovnih dni pred predajo informacij nacionalnim sodnim organom.
Any formal procedure on the part of OLAF or the Supervisory Committee could be seen as an interference with the investigative independence of the OLAF Director concerning ongoing investigations, as an element of his independence includes deciding whether and when a case shall be transmitted to national judicial authorities. 
Kakršen koli formalni postopek urada OLAF ali nadzornega odbora bi bil lahko sprejet kot ovira za preiskovalno neodvisnost direktorja urada OLAF v zvezi s tekočimi preiskavami, saj med elemente njegove neodvisnosti spada odločanje, ali in kdaj se primer preda nacionalnim sodnim organom.
Concerning the protection of the rights of persons being investigated, see reply to paragraph 39. 
V zvezi z varstvom pravic oseb, ki se jih preiskuje, glej odgovor na odstavek 39.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION Follow-up recommendation 9 The first sentence regarding the Supervisory Committee is rejected. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE Priporočilo za nadaljnje ukrepanje 9 Prvi stavek glede nadzornega odbora se zavrne.
Any formal procedure on the part of OLAF or the Supervisory Committee could be seen as an interference with the investigative independence of the OLAF Director. 
Kakršen koli formalni postopek urada OLAF ali nadzornega odbora bi bil lahko sprejet kot ovira za preiskovalno neodvisnost direktorja urada OLAF.
The second sentence is partially accepted. 
Drugi stavek je delno sprejet.
Even though it does not consider OLAF’s investigative actions (including the Final Case Reports) as acts adversely affecting the persons con-cerned7, the Court of Justice contributes to an independent control of these. 
Čeprav ta ne obravnava preiskovalnih dejavnosti urada OLAF (vključno s končnimi poročili) kot dejanj, ki bi neugodno vplivala na zadevne osebe7, Sodišče prispeva k njihovemu neodvisnemu nadzoru.
See also reply to paragraph 39. 
Glej tudi odgovor na odstavek 39.
Additionally, the OLAF Manual provides clear internal guidelines for investigators concerning the conduct of investigations. 
Poleg tega priročnik urada OLAF navaja jasne notranje smernice za preiskovalce glede vodenja preiskav.
7 Refer to cases T-193/04 Tillack v. Commission dated 4 October 2006 and T-261/09P Violetti et Schmit dated 20 May 2010. 
7 Glej zadeve T-193/04 Tillack proti Komisiji z dne 4. oktobra 2006 in T-261/09P Violetti et Schmit z dne 20. maja 2010.
Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office 
Posebno poročilo št. 2/2011 – Nadaljnje ukrepanje po Posebnem poročilu št.
57 The Supervisory Committee takes note of the observations of the Court of Auditors in the follow-up of the Special Report 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-fraud Office and would make the following responses: 1. 
1/2005 o upravljanju Evropskega urada za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF) 57 Nadzorni odbor se je seznanil z opažanji Računskega sodišča glede nadaljnjega ukrepanja po posebnem poročilu št.
The role of the Supervisory Committee following the Franchet and Byk ruling (paragraphs 58–63 and 75–76 of the Court of Auditors observations) (a) Action to be taken by the SC where fundamental rights and procedural guarantees are at stake (paragraphs 58–63, 75–76 and first part of the follow-up recommendation 9) Current situation Currently, OLAF forwards the case reports to the SC five working days before transmission to national judicial authorities (NJA). 
Vloga nadzornega odbora po odločitvi v zadevi Franchet in Byk (odstavki 58–63 in 75–76 predhodnih opažanj Računskega sodišča) a) Ukrepi, ki jih mora sprejeti nadzorni odbor v zvezi s temeljnimi pravicami in postopkovnimi jamstvi (odstavki 58–63 in 75–76 ter prvi del priporočila 9 glede nadaljnjega ukrepanja) Trenutno stanje Urad OLAF poročila o zadevah posreduje nadzornemu odboru pet delovnih dni, preden se ta pošljejo nacionalnim sodnim organom.
These case reports are accompanied by a special report detailing its handling of fundamental rights. 
Tem poročilom se priloži posebno poročilo, v katerem je podrobno opisana obravnava temeljnih pravic.
Following examination of these reports the SC may request, where appropriate, access to the entire file. 
Po proučitvi teh poročil lahko nadzorni odbor po potrebi zahteva vpogled v celoten spis.
The SC then arranges for a discussion on substantive and procedural aspects of cases with OLAF staff who regularly participate in the SC’s plenary meetings. 
Nadzorni odbor nato organizira razpravo o vsebinskih in postopkovnih vidikih zadev z osebjem urada OLAF, ki se redno udeležuje plenarnih zasedanj nadzornega odbora.
This discussion is focused, in particular, on respect for fundamental rights and procedural guarantees of the persons concerned in the investigation. 
Na razpravi se obravnava zlasti spoštovanje temeljnih pravic in postopkovnih jamstev oseb, ki jih preiskava zadeva.
The SC pays particular attention to the duration of the investigation and to the question of time barring. 
Nadzorni odbor je posebno pozoren na trajanje preiskave in vprašanje zastaranja.
REPLY OF THE OLAF SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE Position of the SC The SC considers that respect for fundamental rights is both a safeguard for persons under investigation and a criterion for assessing the effectiveness of OLAF’s investigations. 
ODGOVOR NADZORNEGA ODBORA OLAF Stališče nadzornega odbora Nadzorni odbor meni, da spoštovanje temeljnih pravic zagotavlja zaščito pre-iskovanim osebam in je hkrati tudi merilo za ocenjevanje učinkovitosti preiskav urada OLAF.
The SC is aware and confirms that it shall not interfere in the conduct of ongoing investigations, as stipulated by Regulation No 1073/99. 
Odbor se zaveda in potrjuje, da se ne bo vmešaval v izvajanje preiskav v teku, kot je določeno v Uredbi št. 1073/99.
That is why, in order to fulfil its role of assisting the Director General of OLAF in discharging his responsibilities1, the SC can, and does, draw general observations from the analysis of an individual case with a view to improving OLAF’s practices in future investigations. 
Nadzorni odbor lahko v okviru svoje vloge zagotavljanja podpore generalnemu direktorju urada OLAF pri opravljanju njegovih nalog1 na podlagi analize posamezne zadeve oblikuje splošna opažanja, katerih namen je izboljšati prakse urada OLAF pri prihodnjih preiskavah, in to tudi dela.
However, the SC shall not give directions or recommendations to the Director-General of OLAF on the subsequent course of the individual investigation. 
Vendar pa nadzorni organ ne daje navodil ali priporočil generalnemu direktorju urada OLAF glede nadaljnjega poteka posameznih preiskav.
The SC can also be consulted by the Director-General of OLAF on a specific case. 
Generalni direktor urada OLAF se lahko tudi posvetuje z nadzornim odborom o posamezni zadevi.
The SC is currently working to adapt its rules of procedure to formally take into account the ruling of the Court of First Instance in the Franchet and Byk case. 
Nadzorni odbor pripravlja spremembe svojega poslovnika, s katerimi bo formalno upoštevana odločitev Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi Franchet in Byk.
The SC considers in particular, that before the information is sent to NJAs, it should be entitled to request access to relevant case files to ascertain whether fundamental rights and procedural guarantees are being complied with. 
Nadzorni odbor zlasti meni, da bi moral imeti, preden se informacije pošljejo nacionalnim sodnim organom, možnost, da zahteva vpogled v zadevne spise preiskav, da bi lahko preveril, ali so spoštovane temeljne pravice in zagotovljena postopkovna jamstva.
The SC secretariat shall be afforded access to the documents within a time limit sufficient to guarantee compliance with this function. 
Sekretariatu nadzornega odbora se omogoči dostop do dokumentov in mu da na razpolago dovolj časa, da lahko opravi to nalogo.
Corresponding working arrangements shall be agreed with OLAF. 
O načinu izvajanja te naloge se odbor dogovori z uradom OLAF.
1 The ECA’s Special Report No 1/2005 concluded that ‘the Supervisory Committee does not provide the Office’s Director with all necessary support’ (see paragraph 93). 
1 V posebnem poročilu ERS št. 1/2005 je navedeno, da „nadzorni odbor direktorju urada ne daje vse potrebne podpore“ (glej odstavek 93).
Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office 
2/2011 – Nadaljnje ukrepanje po Posebnem poročilu št.
58 In conformity with the current practice, the SC may also appoint a rapporteur to examine the cases and participate in their presentation at the Committee’s plenary session. 
58 V skladu s sedanjo prakso lahko nadzorni odbor imenuje tudi poročevalca, da prouči zadeve in sodeluje pri njihovi predstavitvi na plenarnem zasedanju odbora.
The management of OLAF shall be invited to this session. 
Vodstvo urada OLAF je vabljeno na tako zasedanje.
If necessary, the SC can issue an opinion. (b) Legal framework protecting the persons being investigated (paragraph 76 and second part of the follow-up recommendation 9) The reform of Regulation No 1073/1999 is ongoing and the SC contributed to the debate by submitting two opinions: Opinion No 3/2010 on the Reflection Paper on the reform of the European Anti-fraud Office and Opinion No 5/2010 on fundamental rights and procedural guarantees within OLAF’s investigations. 
Po potrebi lahko nadzorni odbor izda mnenje. b) Pravni okvir, ki ščiti preiskovane osebe (odstavek 76 in drugi del priporočila 9 glede nadaljnjega ukrepanja) Nadzorni odbor je prispeval dve mnenji k razpravi o prenovi Uredbe št. 1073/1999, ki trenutno poteka: Mnenje št. 3/2010 o dokumentu za razmislek o prenovi Evropskega urada za boj proti goljufijam in Mnenje št.
The SC would welcome any improvement in the legislation designed to clarify and strengthen OLAF’s powers of investigation and the procedural guarantees applicable to OLAF’s investigations. 
Nadzorni odbor podpira vse izboljšave zakonodaje, namenjene razjasnitvi in okrepitvi preiskovalnih pooblastil urada OLAF in postopkovnih jamstev, ki se uporabljajo v preiskavah urada OLAF.