natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The statutory deadlines for the Commission to adopt programme proposals were as follows: wording of these documents before a year or more had passed (Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein, Ems-Dollart Region and Western Mediterranean). 
Predvideni zakonsko določeni roki, do katerih mora Komisija sprejeti predloge programov, so naslednji: V nekaterih primerih je lahko Komisija zaradi slabe kakovosti teh dopolnil besedilo tega dokumenta potrdila šele en ali več mesecev potem (programi pobude Skupnosti za Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein ter za regijo Ems-Dollart).
The programme complements contain a good deal of repetition and placed significant constraints on the preparation process (1). 
V teh dopolnilih je veliko ponavljanj, kar je močno otežilo postopek priprave (1).
Delays in programme adoption do not affect the start of the eligibility period of the final beneficiariesŐ expenditure in the Member States. 
Zamude pri sprejemanju programov ne vplivajo na začetek obdobja upravičenosti izdatkov končnih upravičencev v državah članicah.
None the less, these delays interrupt the cooperation process. 
Kljub temu te zamude ovirajo sodelovanje.
The reason is that beneficiaries prefer to wait for their applications to be approved before starting to implement their projects, and this is only possible after the Commission has adopted the programme and other elements, such as the project selection criteria, have been agreed and put in place. 
Upravičenci pravzaprav raje počakajo, da je njihova zahteva odobrena, preden začnejo izvajati svoj projekt, kar je mogoče šele po tem, ko Komisija sprejme program, ter po opredelitvi in uvedbi drugih elementov, kot so na primer merila za izbor projektov.
The guidelines state that the preparation and implementation of CIPs must be carried out on a cooperative basis, the aim being in particular to promote the emergence of a common strategy for the eligible area and thereby enhance the quality of beneficiariesŐ projects. 
Smernice predvidevajo, da morata priprava in izvajanje programov pobude Skupnosti potekati v sodelovanju, zlasti da se spodbudi oblikovanje skupne strategije za območje, ki izpolnjuje pogoje, s čimer se poveča kakovost projektov upravičencev do pomoči.
The guidelines encourage the private sector, universities and non-governmental organisations to participate as early as the preparation stage. 
Smernice spodbujajo zasebni sektor, univerze in nevladne organizacije, da sodelujejo od samega začetka priprave programov pobude Skupnosti.
These sectors were indeed involved from the earliest reflections on the Strand A CIPs, albeit belatedly in one case (Spain-Portugal). 
Ti sektorji so bili dejansko vključeni od prvih zamisli o programih pobude Skupnosti v okviru usmeritve A, čeprav v enem primeru precej pozno (program pobude Skupnosti za Španijo in Portugalsko).
Consultation on the Strand B CIPs involving a large number of Member States was entered into only partially or not at all because of the already very complex nature of the preparation process. 
Posvetovanja o programih pobude Skupnosti v okviru usmeritve B, ki so vključevala veliko držav članic, so bila izvedena samo delno ali sploh ne zaradi že tako zelo zapletenega postopka priprave.
Where there was consultation, the results were not encouraging. 
Kadar je do posvetovanja prišlo, rezultati niso bili spodbudni.
In the case of Strand C, the CIPs were jointly prepared by the Commission and the competent secretariats. 
Za usmeritev C so programe pobude Skupnosti skupaj pripravili Komisija in sekretariati, zadolženi za te programe.
Meanwhile, since the Ôbottom-upŐ design process is not followed by choices aimed at identifying priorities for action, it delivers very broad intervention programmes that are characterised by heterogeneous measures and result in the dilution of the available resources (see paragraphs 59 to 63). 
Ker tako postopku priprave od spodaj navzgor ne sledijo odločitve, ki naj bi določile prednostne naloge ukrepanja, se oblikujejo zelo obsežni programi pomoči, ki združujejo različne ukrepe in znižujejo učinek razpoložljivih sredstev (glej odstavke 59 do 63).
C 303/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 Do the Member States cooperate on the implementation of CIPs? 
C 303/12 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 7.12.2004 Ali države članice sodelujejo pri izvajanju programov pobude Skupnosti?
The main changes affecting the third generation of Interreg programmes (see paragraph 7) include the establishment of shared managing authorities, paying authorities, monitoring committees, financial plans and bank accounts into which ERDF aid is to be paid, as well as the constitution of JTSs and steering committees. 
Med glavnimi spremembami tretje generacije programov pobude Interreg (glej odstavek 7) so enotnost organa upravljanja, plačilnega organa, nadzornega odbora, bančnega računa, na katerega se nakazuje pomoč ESRR, in finančnega načrta ter vzpostavitev skupnega tehničnega sekretariata in usmerjevalnega odbora.
A single managing authority and a single paying authority were designated for each programme. 
Za vsak program je bil določen enoten organ upravljanja in enoten plačilni organ.
A steering committee was set up comprising representatives from each country concerned. Attempts to establish EEIGs as agents for the implementation of Interreg programmes were unsuccessful (Alps and north-west Europe), despite Commission encouragement (see paragraph 16). 
Poskusi, da bi se ustanovila evropska gospodarska interesna združenja kot nosilci izvajanja programov Interreg, so bili neuspešni (programa pobude Skupnosti za Alpe in za severozahodno Evropo), čeprav jih je Komisija spodbujala (glej odstavek 16).
However, legal entities of this description could provide representation for the Member States involved in a CIP, a situation which is not possible when regional governments act as the single authorities, as in the case of the programmes that were examined. 
Te pravne osebe bi tako lahko zastopale različne zadevne države članice, vključene v program pobude Skupnosti. To pa ni mogoče, dokler so regionalne oblasti edina oblast, kot je to pri pregledanih programih.
The different models used for the constitution of JTSs were sometimes far removed from the spirit of the guidelines, which is also to promote cooperation between the bodies implementing CIPs. 
Skupni tehnični sekretariati so bili ustanovljeni na podlagi različnih modelov, včasih zelo oddaljenih od duha smernic, ki naj bi prav tako spodbujale sodelovanje na ravni organov, pristojnih za izvajanje programov pobude Skupnosti.
However, the Commission accepted the different models because it was concerned above all that the programmes be adopted without further exacerbating the delays: (a) the most successful model is that of a JTS set up in a single location and consisting of representatives of each of the Member States concerned, usually with offices in some or all of the Member States. In the best case examined (Ems-Dollart Region), the JTS is part of an organisation for trans-European cooperation that was set up by the Member States. 
Komisija jih je kljub temu sprejela, zlasti zato, da bi omogočila sprejetje programa, ne da bi pri tem še podaljševala zamude: (a) najuspešnejši model je skupni tehnični sekretariat (STS), ki je ustanovljen na enem samem kraju in sestavljen iz ljudi iz različnih zadevnih držav članic, ponavadi s podružnicami v nekaterih ali vseh državah članicah; v najboljšem primeru je STS del organa za transevropsko sodelovanje, ki ga sestavljajo države članice (program pobude Skupnosti za regijo Ems-Dollart); v drugem primeru je odvisen od družbe, ki ni povezana z izvajanjem programov pobude Skupnosti, vendar ima kljub temu transevropski značaj (program pobude Skupnosti za severozahodno Evropo); v zadnjem primeru je pravno del organa upravljanja, čeprav je fizično ločen od njega, in je sestavljen iz predstavnikov različnih regij držav članic (program pobude Skupnosti za Alpe); (b) model, ki manj ustreza duhu smernic, je model skupnega tehničnega sekretariata, ki je fizično del organa upravljanja, vendar nima predstavnikov drugih držav članic, s katerimi pa se vseeno posvetuje (programa pobude Skupnosti za Irsko in Wales ter za Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein); (c) zadnji primer je še bolj oddaljen od duha smernic (program pobude Skupnosti za Španijo in Portugalsko): na vsaki strani meje ima samo podružnice, ki so del regionalnih uprav; pogosto so zunaj območja, ki izpolnjuje pogoje za pridobitev pomoči in je zelo oddaljeno od meje; zaradi tega je čezmejna regija prikrajšana za vir spodbujanja programa pobude Skupnosti.
Each of the programmes examined operates a single bank account for the receipt of Community funds. 
Bančni račun, ki se uporabi za sredstva Skupnosti, je enoten za vse pregledane programe.
Each of the CIPs examined also has a single financial plan, i.e. a plan that does not indicate the share of each Member State. 
Finančni načrt vseh pregledanih programov pobude Skupnosti je prav tako enoten, kar pomeni, da ni razčlenjen po državah članicah.
On occasion, however, a breakdown of the plan by Member State is attached to the programme complement, the content of which has been verified by the Commission (Alps), or the CIP indicates each Member StateŐs share in ERDF aid (Spain-Portugal and Western Mediterranean). 
Vseeno pa se zgodi, da ta načrt država članica predstavi v prilogi k programskemu dopolnilu, katerega vsebino je preverila Komisija (program pobude Skupnosti za Alpe), ali da je v programu pobude Skupnosti naveden delež vsake države članice v zvezi s pomočjo ESRR (programa pobude Skupnosti za Španijo in Portugalsko ter za zahodno Sredozemlje).
In one instance, moreover (Spain-Portugal), promotional material on the CIP refers exclusively to the share of one of the two Member States. 
Poleg tega v enem primeru reklamni material o programu pobude Skupnosti izključno navaja delež ene od dveh držav članic (program pobude Skupnosti za Španijo in Portugalsko).
None the less, an attentive eye is generally kept on the utilisation of the appropriations that each Member State brings to the CIP financial plan. 
Kljub temu se navadno spremlja poraba sredstev, ki jih vsaka država članica prispeva za pripravo finančnega načrta programa pobude Skupnosti.
Indeed, the single financial plan for each CIP is drawn up on the basis of, on the one hand, the distribution of ERDF resources by Member State and type of intervention (1) and, on the other hand, the way each Member State distributes these resources among the Interreg programmes, according to its own priorities. 
Podlaga za pripravo enotnega finančnega načrta za vsak program pobude Skupnosti je na eni strani razdelitev dodeljenih sredstev iz ESRR po državah članicah in vrsti pomoči (1) ter na drugi strani način, kako države članice ta sredstva razdelijo med programe Interreg glede na svoje prednostne naloge.
Finally, the guidelines recommend that aid contracts be concluded with a single beneficiary having the status of project leader, which must then agree its rights and obligations vis--vis its trans-European partners in the project in question. 
Ne nazadnje smernice priporočajo, da se morajo pogodbe o subvenciji skleniti s samo enim upravičencem, ki ima vlogo vodje projekta in mora nato svoje pravice in obveznosti uskladiti s svojimi transevropskimi partnerji v zadevnem projektu.
This principle was observed in each of the programmes examined, the one exception being where each aid proposal was signed by all the project partners (Ireland-Wales). 
To načelo je bilo upoštevano v vseh pregledanih programih, razen kadar so vsak predlog subvencije podpisali vsi partnerji v projektih (program pobude Skupnosti za Irsko in Wales).
There remain some obstacles to cooperation between all the partners involved in the CIPs that were examined. 
Še vedno pa obstajajo nekatere ovire za sodelovanje med vsemi partnerji, vključenimi v pregledane programe pobude Skupnosti.
These obstacles relate to legal questions and the allocation to the CI of ERDF funding. 
Nanašajo se na pravne vidike in dodelitev finančnih sredstev pobudi Skupnosti iz Evropskega sklada za regionalni razvoj.
None the less, the Interreg III guidelines made it possible to strengthen cooperation between all partners, although the level of commitment to cooperation varies from one CIP to another. 
Smernice Interreg III so kljub temu omogočile okrepitev sodelovanja med vsemi partnerji, čeprav se njihova zavezanost glede sodelovanja med posameznimi programi pobude Skupnosti razlikuje.
CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE INITIAL ANALYSIS AND CHOICE OF MEASURES AND THE ADDED VALUE OF THE FIRST PROJECTS TO BE ADOPTED 51. 
POVEZANOST MED ZAČETNO ANALIZO IN IZBIRO UKREPOV TER DODANO VREDNOSTJO PRVIH SPREJETIH PROJEKTOV 51.
The guidelines provide that the process of planning the CIPs should be analogous to that set out in the basic instrument establishing the Structural Funds. 
Smernice predvidevajo postopek izdelave programov pobude Skupnosti, ki je podoben postopku, določenem v osnovni uredbi o strukturnih skladih.
This process seeks to base the choice of measures for which beneficiariesŐ projects are eligible on an analysis of the regional situation. 
Ta postopek si prizadeva utemeljiti izbiro ukrepov, med katere sodijo projekti upravičencev do pomoči, na analizi položaja v regiji.
Both analysis and planning must take account of the opinion of an assessor appointed by the Member States. 
Ta analiza in tudi izdelava programov pobude Skupnosti morata upoštevati mnenje ocenjevalca, ki so ga izbrale države članice.
The success of the CI is largely dependent on the consistency of this process, namely, on the appropriateness of the measures to the problems diagnosed. 
Uspeh pobud Skupnosti je odvisen zlasti od usklajenosti postopka, v tem primeru primernosti ukrepov za analizirana vprašanja.
It is not enough to qualify as trans-European: projects must also contribute to the resolution of border-related problems. 
Ni dovolj, da imajo projekti transevropski značaj, prispevati morajo tudi k rešitvi vprašanj, povezanih z mejami.
(1) This distribution was agreed at the meeting of Heads of State and Government in Berlin on 24 and 25 March 1999. 
(1) Ta razdelitev je bila določena na srečanju vodij držav in vlad, ki je potekalo 24. in 25. marca 1999 v Berlinu.
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/13 Is the ex ante evaluation used in the drafting of programmes? 
7.12.2004 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 303/13 Ali predhodna ocena prispeva k izdelavi programov?
The ex ante assessors often made a significant contribution to the preparation and drafting of CIPs. 
Predhodni ocenjevalci so pogosto pomembno prispevali k pripravi in izdelavi programov pobude Skupnosti.
The documents produced under the heading Ôex ante evaluationŐ are composed, as a rule, of texts which have already been incorporated in their entirety into the CIPs, and of notes explaining the content of those texts. 
Predložene dokumente pod oznako „predhodna ocena“ ponavadi sestavljajo dokumenti, ki so že bili v celoti vključeni v programe pobude Skupnosti, in pojasnila, ki utemeljujejo njihovo vsebino.
Consequently, the ex ante assessors usually did not comment critically on the programme proposals that were submitted to the Commission, and to which they had contributed. 
Zato predhodni ocenjevalci ponavadi niso bili kritični do predlogov programov, ki so bili predloženi Komisiji in pri izdelavi katerih so sodelovali.
However, in one case (Europe), a number of fundamental criticisms were formulated, observing, for example, that the CIPŐs objective was too broad and that it would be beneficial to define a single, clear and unambiguous objective. 
Vendar je bilo v enem primeru (program pobude Skupnosti za severozahodno Evropo) izraženih nekaj temeljnih kritik, na primer, da je cilj programa pobude Skupnosti preobse-žen in da bi bilo koristno oblikovati enoten, jasen in nedvoumen cilj.
Yet it was where the assessor was not involved in preparation of the CIP (Ireland-Wales) that he raised the most important questions: the usefulness of multiple analyses, the weakness of the link between the analysis and the definition of priorities and measures, and the poor identification of border-related problems and potential. 
Vendar je najpomembnejša vprašanja postavil ocenjevalec, ko ni sodeloval pri pripravi programa pobude Skupnosti (program pobude Skupnosti za Irsko in Wales): uporabnost številnih analiz, šibka povezava med analizo in opredelitvijo prednostnih nalog in ukrepov ter tudi slaba opredelitev težav in možnosti, povezanih z mejo.
The lack of objective criticism during the drafting stage of CIP proposals, the general nature of the CI objectives, the lack of specific information on each eligible area (see paragraphs 17 to 25) and the failure to establish detailed qualitative criteria in advance (see paragraph 34) all combined to form an obstacle to the preparation of quality CIPs. 
Pomanjkanje kritičnega pogleda pri izdelavi predlogov programov pobude Skupnosti, splošnost ciljev pobud Skupnosti, pomanjkanje podatkov za vsako območje, ki izpolnjuje pogoje (glej odstavke 17 do 25), in pomanjkanje vnaprej opredeljenih podrobnih meril kakovosti (glej odstavek 34) so ovirali pripravo kakovostnega programa pobude Skupnosti.
Were the results of the previous programming period taken into account? 
Ali so bili upoštevani rezultati prejšnjega programskega obdobja?
When the Interreg III programmes were being prepared, only the mid-term evaluations for the previous period were available. 
Pri pripravi programov Interreg III so bile na voljo samo vmesne ocene prejšnjega obdobja.
The content of these evaluations, in terms of recommendations for the new period, varies greatly. 
Njihova vsebina glede priporočil za novo obdobje je zelo različna.
The most significant aspects noted by the assessors, which, it seems, were not given sufficient consideration, are the following: by the higher number of Member States participating in each programme. There are numerous difficulties in obtaining harmonised and up-to-date statistics: the absence of statistics in one or other of the Member States, statistics submitted on different dates or according to different criteria, and poor data reliability owing to the small geographical divisions encountered at Strand A level. (a) (b) the lack of clarity of the strategy and priorities laid down for the programmes (see paragraphs 58 to 63); the need to define indicators which would enable a programmeŐs impact to be measured; in spite of efforts in this respect (see paragraph 21), the resulting proposals remain inadequate (see paragraphs 73 to 77). 
Najpomembnejši vidiki, ki so jih ocenjevalci razkrili in za katere se zdi, da niso bili ustrezno upoštevani, so naslednji: usklajenih in najnovejših statističnih podatkov obstajajo številne težave: pomanjkanje statističnih podatkov v eni ali drugi državi članici, različni datumi predložitve ali različna merila, pomanjkanje zanesljivosti ob upoštevanju razdelitve na geografsko omejena območja za usmeritev A. 56. Te analize so malo uporabne, ker ne ustrezajo dvema predvidenima namenoma: (a) niso jim sledile ciljno naravnane odločitve, ki bi vodile k oblikovanju strategij za zadevne regije, na podlagi katerih bi morali opredeliti prednostne naloge in ukrepe programov pobude Skupnosti (glej odstavke 58 do 63); (b) statistični podatki, na katerih temeljijo, se ne uporabljajo za opredelitev začetnega položaja v regiji, na podlagi katerega bodo kazalniki izmerili učinek programa pobude Skupnosti (glej odstavke 73 do 77), kar škodi primernosti ocene učinka.
Interregional 56. two (a) (b) 57. lines to provide a clear identification of needs (see paragraph 24) is echoed in the CIPs under this strand, which refer to no analysis in any form. 
57. Pri usmeritvi C se odsotnost jasne opredelitve potreb v smernicah Komisije (glej odstavek 24) kaže tudi v programih pobude Skupnosti te usmeritve, ki se ne sklicujejo na nobeno analizo.
It is therefore difficult to specify the objectives of these programmes and determine a method for measuring the progress to be achieved. 
Težko je torej določiti cilje teh programov in način, kako oceniti dosežen napredek.
Can the problems addressed be attributed to the existence of a border? 
Ali je vzrok za zadevne težave obstoj meja?
The descriptions present development-related problems, in the same way as traditional ERDF intervention programmes, but do not usually focus on the problems created by the existence of borders, such as missing links (1). 
Opisi predstavljajo razvojne težave, enako kot pri tradicionalnem programu pomoči ESRR, ne da bi se na splošno osredotočili na težave, nastale zaradi meja, kot so „manjkajoče pove-zave“ (1).
However: (a) in some areas, borders appear to impede efforts to attain development objectives. 
Vendar: (a) lahko meje na nekaterih področjih ovirajo prizadevanja za doseganje razvojnih ciljev.
This is true in particular of environmental problems on one side of a border that also impact on the opposite side (water quality, fire prevention, reafforestation, joint action in protected zones, natural hazards, etc.); (b) some programmes include an assessment of cross-border cooperation and of the advantages which this can bring in specific sectors, such as the labour market, transport and communications, science and health (Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein and Ems-Dollart Region). 
Zlasti gre za okoljske probleme, ki, kadar se pojavijo na eni strani meje, vplivajo tudi na drugo stran (kakovost voda, preprečevanje požarov, pogozdovanje, skupni ukrepi na varovanih območjih, naravne nesreče itd.); (b) nekateri programi vključujejo prikaz stanja čezmejnega sodelovanja in koristi, ki jih to lahko prinese na določenih področjih, kot so trg dela, promet in komunikacije, znanost in zdravje (program pobude Skupnosti za Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein ter za regijo Ems-Dollart).
Another programme (Spain-Portugal) highlights the advantage of cooperation in certain fields, in the cross-border area, such as railway connections, spatial management, rivers and water resources; (1) This expression is used on page 7 of the CommissionŐs ÔWorking paper 6 (5 May 2000) Ń ex ante evaluation and indicators for Interreg (Strand A)Ő. 
Drug program (za Španijo in Portugalsko) poudarja korist sodelovanja na nekaterih področjih, kot so železniške povezave, urejanje prostora, rek in vodnih virov na čezmejnem območju; (1) TaizrazjebiluporabljenvdelovnemdokumentuKomisiješt.6(5.maj 2000) – „Predhodna ocena in kazalniki za Interreg (Usmeritev A)“ – str.
The missing link refers to the barrier effect of a border. 
Manjkajoča povezava ustreza učinku pregrade, ki ga ima meja.
These analyses are of little value as they fail to perform necessary functions: they were not followed by targeted choices generating strategies for the regions concerned, on the basis of which priorities and measures for the CIPs should have been defined (see paragraphs 58 to 63); the statistics on which they are based are of no use in defining regional points of departure against which the indicators are to measure the impact of the CIPs (see paragraphs 73 to 77). 
Komisija kot primere navaja odsotnost čezmejnih povezav, čezmejno onesnaževanje rek in pomanjkanje vzajemnega priznavanja kvalifikacij. (a) (b) pomanjkanje jasne strategije in prednostnih nalog, določenih za program (glej odstavke 58 do 63); potreba po opredelitvi kazalnikov, s katerimi bi lahko izmerili učinek programa; kljub prizadevanjem na tem področju (glej odstavek 21) ostajajo predlogi v zvezi s tem nezadostni (glej odstavke 73 do 77). 54. projekte medregionalnega sodelovanja kljub temu neposredno upravljala v obliki inovativnih ukrepov v okviru strukturnih skladov.