natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the Commission does not accept the recommendation to re-analyse the application, as it considers that the CASE project is eligible and, in any case, the question of the eligibility of the CASE project or any possible savings in its execution would not have had any impact on the EU budget as the expenditure declared for first emergency operations alone amounted to EUR 653 million, and was therefore sufficient to justify the EUSF grant of EUR 494 million. 
Vendar pa se Komisija ne strinja s priporočilom, da naj ponovno analizira vlogo za pomoč, saj meni da je projekt C.A.S.E. upravičen ter da vprašanje upravičenosti projekta C.A.S.E. ali morebitnih prihrankov pri njegovem izvajanju v nobenem primeru ne bi vplivalo na proračun EU, ker so že samo prijavljeni odhodki za prve nujne ukrepe znašali 653 milijonov EUR in so torej zadostovali, da so bila nepovratna sredstva iz SSEU v višini 494 milijonov EUR upravičena.
The Commission refers to its reply to paragraph 50. 
Komisija se sklicuje na svoj odgovor na odstavek 50.
The Commission shares the Court’s view that a high degree of preparedness is key to the success of disaster-response operations and should therefore be promoted. 
Komisija se strinja s stališčem Sodišča, da je visoka stopnja pripravljenosti odločilna za uspešnost ukrepov odzivanja na nesreče in bi jo bilo zato treba spodbujati.
Nevertheless, the identification and assessment of appropriate construction sites has to be carried out on a proportionate basis. 
Kljub temu je treba primerne lokacije za gradnjo določiti in oceniti sorazmerno.
The number of apartments was significantly increased in the process but it was never intended that the CASE blocks should accommodate the entire homeless population. 
Število stanovanj se je sicer precej povečalo, vendar pa namen nikoli ni bil, da bi se v blokih C.A.S.E. nastanili vsi prebivalci, ki so ostali brez doma.
The CASE project was rather part of a much wider strategy consisting of a multitude of actions. 
Projekt C.A.S.E. je bil pravzaprav del precej širše strategije, ki je vključevala množico ukrepov.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION 55. 
ODGOVOR KOMISIJE 55.
The adoption of a new strategy results from the assessment of earlier strategies which, as in the case of Italy, proved to be inadequate as they have resulted in thousands of people having to dwell in unacceptable conditions. 
Nova strategija je bila sprejeta na podlagi ocene preteklih strategij, ki so se, kot v primeru Italije, izkazale za neprimerne, saj so povzročile, da je moralo več tisoč ljudi bivati v nesprejemljivih razmerah.
The experience gained in implementing this new strategy has already been mainstreamed by the Department of Civil Protection, by drafting technical specifications for different solutions to be procured via framework contracts. 
Izkušnje, pridobljene pri izvajanju te nove strategije, je Služba civilne zaščite že upoštevala v praksi, s tem ko je pripravila tehnične specifikacije za različne rešitve, za katere naj bi se oddala naročila na podlagi okvirnih pogodb.
The CASE blocks responded to specific needs and circumstances that could hardly have been known before the earthquake. 
Projekt se je z bloki C.A.S.E. odzval na specifične potrebe in okoliščine, za katere pred potresom praktično ni bilo mogoče vedeti.
A large number of people could indeed move in before the winter. 
V resnici se je lahko pred zimo vselilo veliko število ljudi.
The Commission considers that given the circumstances the progress of construction was a major achievement. 
Komisija meni, da je bil glede na okoliščine napredek pri gradnji velik dosežek.
Recommendation 2 The Commission shares the Court’s analysis that a high degree of preparedness is key to the success of disaster-response operations and should therefore be promoted. 
Priporočilo 2 Komisija se strinja z analizo Sodišča, da je visoka stopnja pripravljenosti odločilna za uspešnost ukrepov odzivanja na nesreče in bi jo bilo zato treba spodbujati.
Over the past years the Commission has considerably stepped up its activities in the field and will continue to do so through the civil protection mechanism. 
Komisija je v zadnjih letih močno okrepila svoje dejavnosti na tem področju, za kar si bo prek mehanizma civilne zaščite prizadevala tudi v prihodnje.
On 20 December 2011, the European Commission proposed legislation to strengthen European cooperation in civil protection which will provide a more efficient, effective and rapid response to disasters as well as enhanced prevention and preparedness actions. 
Tako je 20. decembra 2011 predlagala zakonodajo za krepitev evropskega sodelovanja na področju civilne zaščite, ki bo zagotavljala uspešnejše, učinkovitejše in hitrejše odzivanje na nesreče ter izboljšane ukrepe v zvezi s preprečevanjem in pripravljenostjo.
In October 2011, the Commission presented new proposals for the period 2014–20 which include strengthened provisions regarding disaster management. 
Komisija je oktobra 2011 predstavila nove predloge za obdobje 2014–2020, ki vključujejo okrepljene določbe o obvladovanju nesreč.
A general requirement to address disaster resilience, risk prevention and management in all programmes has been introduced. 
Uvedena je bila splošna zahteva, da se odpornost proti nesrečam, preprečevanje tveganj za nesreče in obvladovanje nesreč obravnavajo v vseh programih.
A requirement to disaster-(and climate-)proof infrastructure investments to be supported by EU funding has also been introduced. Special Report No 24/2012 – The European Union Solidarity Fund’s response to the 2009 Abruzzi earthquake: the relevance and cost of operations 
Uvedena je bila tudi zahteva za naložbe v proti nesre-čam (in podnebnim razmeram) odporno infrastrukturo, ki se financirajo iz sredstev EU. Posebno poročilo št.24/2012 – Odziv Solidarnostnega sklada Evropske unije na potres v Abrucih leta 2009: ustreznost in stroški ukrepov
46 Recommendation 2 (a) The European Commission proposal to revise existing European civil protection legislation introduces a new chapter on prevention with a view to enhancing the importance of the EU prevention framework and effectively linking it to the preparedness and prevention actions. 
46 Priporočilo 2 (a) Predlog Komisije za spremembo obstoječe evropske zakonodaje o civilni zaščiti uvaja novo poglavje o preprečevanju z namenom, da se okrepi pomen okvira EU za preprečevanje nesreč ter da se okvir učinkovito poveže z ukrepi na področju pripravljenosti in preprečevanja.
Building on the ongoing work on risk assessment to ensure effective cooperation within the mechanism, the proposal includes a framework for the development of risk-management plans at national level, taking into account and coherent with other risk-management plans in the country. 
Ta predlog, ki zaradi zagotavljanja učinkovitega sodelovanja v okviru navedenega mehanizma temelji na tekočem delu v zvezi z ocenjevanjem tveganj, vključuje okvir za razvoj načrtov za obvladovanje tveganj na nacionalni ravni, ob upoštevanju drugih načrtov za obvladovanje tveganj v zadevni državi in v skladu z njimi.
Recommendation 2 (b) The Commission plans to promote and support the development and implementation of Member States’ risk-management plans, including guidelines on their content where such aspects could be considered. 
Priporočilo 2 (b) Komisija namerava spodbujati ter podpirati razvoj in izvajanje načrtov držav članic za obvladovanje tveganj, vključno s smernicami o vsebini tovrstnih načrtov, kadar bi bilo mogoče take vidike upoštevati.
Recommendation 2 (c) The provisions of the directives and their transposition into national law apply, including the specific provisions that allow derogation from normal procedures in cases of an emergency, namely the one expressed in Article 31(1)(c) of Directive 2004/18/EC. 
Priporočilo 2 (c) Uporabljajo se določbe direktiv in njihove ustrezne določbe, prenesene v nacionalno zakonodajo, vključno s posebnimi določbami, ki dovoljujejo odstopanje od običajnih postopkov v nujnih primerih, in sicer v primeru iz člena 31(1)(c) Direktive 2004/18/ES.
Economy is only one of several competing objectives. 
Gospodarnost je samo eden od številnih nasprotujočih si ciljev.
In a major emergency situation the focus must be on rapid and effective response operations whose specific conditions will necessarily have a bearing on price. 
V izrednih razmerah večjih razsežnosti mora biti poudarek na hitrem in učinkovitem odzivanju, katerega specifični pogoji navadno nujno vplivajo na ceno.
While economy is to be sought, it has to be considered in the specific context of an emergency situation. 
Čeprav si je za gospodarnost treba prizadevati, jo je treba obravnavati v specifičnem okviru izrednih razmer.
Longer and more detailed tendering procedures may possibly have saved some money but would have led to delays in the construction of the CASE apartments. The Commission considers that rapidity and economy are to a degree competing objectives. 
Z daljšimi in natančnejšimi razpisnimi postopki bi se mogoče res dalo prihraniti nekaj denarja, a bi povzročili zamude pri gradnji stanovanj C.A.S.E. Komisija meni, da sta hitrost in gospodarnost do neke mere nasprotujoča si cilja.
Giving priority to speed over economy was in the Commission’s view a justified choice by the Italian authorities. REPLY OF THE COMMISSION 58. 
Po mnenju Komisije je bila odločitev italijanskih organov, da dajo prednost hitrosti pred gospodarnostjo, upravičena. ODGOVOR KOMISIJE 58.
The regulation leaves the weighting of the different criteria for procurement to the assessment of the Member State. 
Uredba prepušča ponderiranje različnih meril za javno naročanje v presojo državi članici.
Recommendation 3 (a) Public procurement is addressed during ex post audit missions on EU grants carried out on a risk-based sample. 
Priporočilo 3 (a) Javno naročanje je obravnavano v okviru naknadnih revizij nepovratnih sredstev EU, ki se izvedejo na vzorcu na podlagi tveganja.
The Commission will examine whether there are lessons to be drawn from this for general application. 
Komisija bo preučila, ali je iz tega mogoče pridobiti kakršna koli spoznanja, ki bi bila splošno uporabna.
Recommendation 3 (b) The Commission regularly assesses the implementation of all EUSF grants based on the implementation reports and validity statements submitted by the beneficiary countries as well as by own monitoring and audit missions. 
Priporočilo 3 (b) Komisija redno ocenjuje izvrševanje vseh nepovratnih sredstev iz SSEU na podlagi poročil o izvajanju in izjav o veljavnosti, ki jih predložijo države upravičenke ter njene lastne misije za spremljanje in revizijo.
Moreover, the Commission has presented a major assessment of the Solidarity Fund in its communication on the future of the Solidarity Fund presented in October 2011, which serves as a basis for the current revision of some provisions of the regulation. 
Poleg tega je Komisija obsežno oceno Solidarnostnega sklada predstavila v svojem sporočilu o prihodnosti Solidarnostnega sklada iz oktobra 2011, ki se uporablja kot podlaga za trenutno revizijo nekaterih določb uredbe.
European Court of Auditors Special Report No 24/2012 The European Union Solidarity Fund’s response to the 2009 Abruzzi earthquake: the relevance and cost of operations Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2013 — 46 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm ISBN 978-92-9241-071-1 doi:10.2865/53557 
Evropsko računsko sodišče Posebno poročilo št. 24/2012 Odziv Solidarnostnega sklada Evropske unije na potres v Abrucih leta 2009: ustreznost in stroški ukrepov Luxembourg: Urad za publikacije Evropske unije 2013 – 46 str. – 21 × 29,7 cm ISBN 978-92-9241-086-5 doi:10.2865/55669
FOLLOWING THE EARTHQUAKE IN ABRUZZI REGION IN APRIL 2009, THE EUROPEAN UNION SOLIDARITY FUND CO-FINANCED WITH THE AMOUNT OF 494 MILLION EURO THE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO THE POPULATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY HOUSES AND SCHOOLS. 
PO POTRESU V DEŽELI ABRUCI APRILA 2009 JE SOLIDARNOSTNI SKLAD EVROPSKE UNIJE Z ZNESKOM 494 MILIJONOV EUR SOFINANCIRAL NUJNO POMOČ PREBIVALSTVU IN GRADNJO ZAČASNIH BIVALIŠČ IN ŠOL.
THE COURT ANALYSED THE RELEVANCE AND COST OF THE OPERATIONS AND IN PARTICULAR OF THE CASE PROJECT. 
SODIŠČE JE ANALIZIRALO USTREZNOST IN STROŠKE UKREPOV, ZLASTI PROJEKTA CASE.
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS QJ-AB-12-023-EN-C 
EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE QJ-AB-12-023-SL-C
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS EN HAS THE COMMISSION ENSURED EFFICIENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR RESEARCH? 
EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE SL ALI JE KOMISIJA ZAGOTOVILA UČINKOVITO IZVAJANJE SEDMEGA OKVIRNEGA PROGRAMA ZA RAZISKAVE?
Special Report No 2 2013 ISSN 1831-0834 
Posebno poročilo št.
Special Report No 2 2013 HAS THE COMMISSION ENSURED EFFICIENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR RESEARCH? (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 
Posebno poročilo št. 2 2013 ALI JE KOMISIJA ZAGOTOVILA UČINKOVITO IZVAJANJE SEDMEGA OKVIRNEGA PROGRAMA ZA RAZISKAVE? (v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 287(4) PDEU) EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG Tel. +352 4398-1 Fax +352 4398-46410 E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu Internet: http://eca.europa.eu Special Report No 2 2013 A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUKSEMBURG Tel. +352 4398-1 Faks +352 4398-46410 E-naslov: eca-info@eca.europa.eu Internet: http://eca.europa.eu Posebno poročilo št.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013 ISBN 978-92-9241-182-4 doi:10.2865/73998 © European Union, 2013 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 
Luxembourg: Urad za publikacije Evropske unije, 2013 ISBN 978-92-9241-197-8 doi:10.2865/76468 © Evropska unija, 2013 Reprodukcija je dovoljena z navedbo vira.
DFG: The German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) funds research projects in all fields of science and the humanities. 
DFG: Nemška fundacija za raziskave (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), ki financira raziskovalne projekte na vseh področjih znanosti in humanistike.
It has an annual budget of almost 2,5 billion euro. 
Njen letni proračun znaša skoraj 2,5 milijarde EUR.
ERA: The European Research Area is composed of all research and development activities, programmes and policies in Europe which involve a transnational perspective. 
EIB: Evropska investicijska banka ERA: Evropski raziskovalni prostor (ERA) zajema vse raziskovalne in razvojne dejavnosti, programe in politike v Evropi, ki so nadnacionalnega značaja.
Together, they enable researchers, research institutions and businesses to increasingly circulate, compete and cooperate across borders. 
Slednji raziskovalcem, raziskovalnim ustanovam in podjetjem omogočajo vse več čezmejnega gibanja, konkuriranja in sodelovanja.
The overarching aim is to improve the organisation and coordination of the research effort in Europe so that transnational synergies and complementarities are fully exploited. 
Glavni cilj je izboljšati organizacijo in usklajevanje raziskovalnih prizadevanj v Evropi, da se v celoti izkoristijo nadnacionalne sinergije in medsebojno dopolnjevanje.
ERCEA: The European Research Council Executive Agency was created to manage exclusively the Ideas Specific Programme, following the strategic directions of the European Research Council. 
ERCEA: Izvajalska agencija Evropskega raziskovalnega sveta je bila ustanovljena izključno za upravljanje posebnega programa „Zamisli“ v skladu s strateškimi smernicami Evropskega raziskovalnega sveta.
Europe 2020: Europe 2020 is the EU's growth strategy for the coming decade and aims to make the EU a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. 
Evropa 2020: Evropa 2020 je strategija za rast EU za naslednje desetletje, s katero naj bi EU postala pametna, trajnostna in vključujoča gospodarska sila.
Ex post controls: Ex post controls are detective controls, which are carried out after payment has been made. 
Naknadne kontrole: Naknadne kontrole so kontrole za odkrivanje napak, ki se izvajajo po izvedbi plačila.
Horizon 2020: Horizon 2020 is the EU’s new programme for research and innovation. 
Obzorje 2020: Obzorje 2020 je nov program EU za raziskave in inovacije.
It is FP7’s successor programme and will run from 2014 to 2020. 
OP in bo potekal med letoma 2014 in 2020.
For this period, the Commission has proposed a budget of 80 billion euro. 
Komisija je za to obdobje predlagala proračun v višini 80 milijard EUR.
JTIs: Joint technology initiatives are long-term public-private partnerships. 
Skupne tehnološke pobude: Skupne tehnološke pobude so dolgoročna javno-zasebna partnerstva.
They combine private sector investment with European public funding. 
Združujejo naložbe zasebnega sektorja in javno financiranje na evropski ravni.
JTIs have the legal status of joint undertakings within the meaning of Article 187 TFEU. 
Skupne tehnološke pobude imajo pravni status skupnih podjetij v skladu s členom 187 PDEU.
SNF: The Swiss National Foundation (Schweizerischer Nationalfonds) is a Swiss federal agency for the promotion of scientific research. 
SNF: Švicarska nacionalna fundacija (Schweizerischer Nationalfonds) je švicarska zvezna agencija za spodbujanje znanstvenih raziskav.
It has an annual budget of around 700 million Swiss francs (580 million euro). 
Njen letni proračun znaša približno 700 milijonov švicarskih frankov (580 milijonov EUR).
TSB: The Technology Strategy Board is a UK innovation agency, whose aim is to accelerate economic growth by stimulating and supporting business-led innovation. 
TSB: Odbor za strategijo tehnološkega razvoja (Technology Strategy Board) je inovacijska agencija iz Združenega kraljestva, katere namen je pospeševanje gospodarske rasti s spodbujanjem in podpiranjem inovacij, ki jih narekujejo podjetja.
It has an annual budget of around 250 million euro. 
Njen letni proračun znaša približno 250 milijonov EUR.
TTG: ‘Time to grant’ is the length of time required to successfully select a proposal and negotiate a contract. 
TTG: Čas do dodelitve („time to grant“) je čas, ki je potreben za uspešno izbiro predloga in podpis pogodbe.
TTP: ‘Time to pay’ is the length of time required to make a payment to a consortium of beneficiaries. 7 Special Report No 2/2013 – Has the Commission ensured efficient implementation of the seventh framework programme for research? 
TTP: Čas do plačila („time to pay“) je čas, ki je potreben za plačilo konzorciju upravičencev. 7 Posebno poročilo št. 2/2013 – Ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje Sedmega okvirnega programa za raziskave?
8 SUMMARY I. The seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities is one of the Union’s key instruments for funding research and is the EU’s contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy. 
8 POVZETEK I. Sedmi okvirni program za raziskave, tehnološki razvoj in predstavitvene dejavnosti je eden ključnih instrumentov Unije za financiranje raziskav in je prispevek EU k strategiji Evropa 2020.
It aims to strengthen industrial competitiveness and to meet the research needs of other Union pol icies, thereby contributing to the creation of a knowledge-based society. 
Njegov namen je okrepiti konkurenčnost industrije in zadovoljiti raziskovalne potrebe na področju drugih politik Unije ter tako prispevati k oblikovanju družbe znanja.
It covers the period 2007–13 and its total budget amounts to more than 50 billion euro. 
Pokriva obdobje 2007–2013, njegov skupni proračun pa znaša več kot 50 milijard EUR.
The vast majority of the budget is spent by the Commission directorates-general or its executive agencies in the form of grants to final beneficiaries (see paragraphs 1 to 13). 
Veliko večino proračuna porabijo generalni direktorati Komisije ali izvajalske agencije, slednje kot nepovratna sredstva za končne upravičence (glej odstavke 1 do 13).
In order to examine whether the Commission has ensured efficient implementation of FP7, the Court’s audit addressed the following questions (see paragraphs 14 to 16): (a) Have the rules for participation allowed efficient implementation of fp7? (b) Has the Commission succeeded in streamlining the FP7 processes without compromising the quality of spending? (c) Did the Commission manage well the setting up of new instruments? 
Da bi ugotovilo, ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje 7. OP, je Sodišče med revizijo obravnavalo naslednja vprašanja (glej odstavke 14 do 16): (a) Ali so pravila za udeležbo omogočala učinkovito izvajanje 7.
Over the course of FP7 the Commission has introduced a number of changes which have simplified the rules for participation. 
Komisija je med 7. OP uvedla številne spremembe, s katerimi je poenostavila pravila za udeležbo.
In particular, the Commission has rationalised the requirements and improved its guidance documents for beneficiaries in a satisfactory manner. 
Predvsem je racionalizirala zahteve in zadovoljivo izboljšala svoje smernice za upravičence in v nekaterih primerih jih je uspelo uskladiti določbe 7.
The Commission has been able to align FP7 provisions with beneficiaries’ practices in some cases but more needs to be done in the future. 
OP s praksami upravičencev, vendar mora v prihodnosti storiti več. Upravičenci 7.
FP7 beneficiaries are faced with inconsistencies related to some aspects of the rules for participation. 
OP se srečujejo z nedoslednostmi pri nekaterih vidikih pravil za udeležbo.
The establishment of the Research Clearing Committee is a step in the right direction to tackle these inconsistencies; however the mechanisms for identification of diverging practices are weak (see paragraphs 17 to 44). Special Report No 2/2013 – Has the Commission ensured efficient implementation of the seventh framework programme for research? 
Ustanovitev Odbora za raziskovalna vprašanja je korak v pravo smer za odpravo teh nedoslednosti, vendar pa so mehanizmi za ugotavljanje različnih praks šibki (glej odstavke 17 do 44). Posebno poročilo št. 2/2013 – Ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje Sedmega okvirnega programa za raziskave?
The Commission’s processes are geared to ensuring that funding is invested in high-quality research; however, there has been less focus on efficiency. 
Postopki Komisije so zasnovani tako, da zagotavljajo, da se sredstva vlagajo v visokokakovostne raziskave, vendar je bilo manj poudarka na učinkovitosti.
The audit found that: (a) the Commission’s management of FP7 processes is strong in three out of five areas, i.e. process design, improvement activities and management information, but less so as regards tools and resources. 
Revizija je pokazala: (a) Komisija dobro upravlja postopke 7. OP na treh od petih področij: načrtovanje postopkov, dejavnosti za izboljšanje in informacije o upravljanju.
The existing tools do not allow efficient implementation and there are indications that too many staff resources are used for the implementation of certain themes under the Cooperation Specific Programme at the expense of other themes (see paragraphs 45 to 55). (b) whilst processing times have shortened over the course of FP7, they have only approached 9 months in 2012. 
Manj učinkovito pa je na področju orodij in virov. Obstoječa orodja ne omogočajo učinkovitega izvajanja in obstajajo znaki, da se preveč kadrovskih virov porabi za izvajanje nekaterih tem posebnega programa „Sodelovanje“ v škodo ostalih tem (glej odstavke 45 do 55); (b) čeprav se je čas obravnave med 7.
The audit has highlighted good practices to further shorten time to grant. 
Pri reviziji so bile poudarjene dobre prakse za nadaljnje skrajšanje časa do dodelitve nepovratnih sredstev.
Management attention to this problem and the existence of an environment which allows for the effective sharing of good practices are key (see paragraphs 56 to 66). (c) the quality controls on the selection and follow-up of the projects are functioning well. 
Pozornost, ki jo vodstvo posveča temu problemu, in okolje, ki omogoča učinkovito izmenjavo dobrih praks, sta ključnega pomena (glej odstavke 56 do 66); (c) kontrole kakovosti pri izbiri projektov in nadaljnjem ukrepanju dobro delujejo.