natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Even though it proved to involve costs of up to €190 billion by 2050, it was launched with no overall cost estimate or appropriate planning18. Special report on a European high speed rail network, and Landscape review on transport We found in our audit on a European high-speed rail network that Member States did not build high-speed train lines if they were not considered a national priority, even if situated on a transnational corridor and part of the core network. 
Čeprav se je pokazalo, da bodo stroški sistema do leta 2050 znašali do 190 milijard EUR, se je ta začel izvajati brez ocene skupnih stroškov ali ustreznega načrtovanja.18 Posebno poročilo o evropskem železniškem omrežju za visoke hitrosti in panoramski pregled o prometu Sodišče je pri reviziji evropskega železniškega omrežja za visoke hitrosti ugotovilo, da države članice niso gradile prog za vlake za visoke hitrosti, če te niso bile nacionalna prioriteta, tudi če se nahajajo v nadnacionalnem koridorju in so del jedrnega omrežja.
Moreover, the Commission had limited enforcement tools or powers with which to hold Member States to their commitments to build the high-speed lines that were needed to complete the core network19. 21 We did report on one example where the absence of binding legislation did not prevent EU-level ambitions from being shared by Member States. 
Poleg tega Komisija ni imela zadostnih orodij ali pooblastil za izvrševanje, da bi države članice prisilila, naj spoštujejo svoje zaveze za zgraditev prog za visoke hitrosti, ki so potrebne za dokončanje jedrnega omrežja.19 21 Sodišče je poročalo o primeru, v katerem so imele države članice kljub temu, da zakonodaja na tem področju ni zavezujoča, enake ambicije, kot so bile sprejete na ravni EU.
We found that the EU education objectives had been adequately considered in the operational programmes and related projects for 2007-2013 and in the design of programmes for the 2014-2020 programme period. This was despite the fact that education policy is a full and exclusive competence of Member States and that EU strategies are adopted in the form of Council conclusions, which are not legally binding for EU Member States20. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so bili cilji EU na področju izobraževanja ustrezno upoštevani v operativnih programih in z njimi povezanih projektih za obdobje 2007– 2013 ter pri zasnovi programov za programsko obdobje 2014–2020, in sicer kljub dejstvu, da so za izobraževanje v celoti in izključno pristojne države članice ter da se strategije EU sprejmejo kot sklepi Sveta, ki niso pravno zavezujoči za države članice EU. 20
Strategic objectives should be translated into operational objectives 22 Sometimes the Commission or Member States do not translate the strategic objectives into operational objectives21. Where this is the case, the high-level objectives risk remaining solely political aspirations. 
Strateške cilje bi bilo treba prenesti v operativne cilje 22 Komisija in države članice strateških ciljev včasih ne prenesejo v operativne cilje.21 V takih primerih obstaja tveganje, da bodo cilji na visoki ravni ostali zgolj politična prizadevanja.
The importance of this operationalisation has also been recognised by the European Parliament22. 18 Special report on Broadband in the EU Member States Member States’ strategies for the implementation of EU’s investments in broadband in the 2014-2020 period were not consistent with the overarching Europe 2020 strategy. 
Pomembnost te operacionalizacije je priznal tudi Evropski parlament.22 18 Posebno poročilo o širokopasovnih povezavah v državah članicah EU Strategije držav članic za izvajanje naložb EU v širokopasovne povezave v obdobju 2014–2020 niso bile skladne s krovno strategijo Evropa 2020.
While some set targets that were more demanding than those in the Europe 2020 strategy, none of the Member States examined included in their strategy a national target relating to one of the three EU targets: take-up by 50 % of households to ultra-fast broadband23. 23 For 2014-2020, the Commission sought to translate the Europe 2020 strategic objectives into Cohesion policy through the inclusion of thematic objectives broken down to investment priorities linked to the Europe 2020 headline targets. 
Nekatere ciljne vrednosti držav članic so bile sicer zahtevnejše od tistih v strategiji Evropa 2020, vendar pa nobena od držav članic, ki jih je Sodišče preučilo, v svojo strategijo ni vključila nacionalnih ciljnih vrednosti v zvezi z eno od treh ciljnih vrednosti EU, tj. da se 50 % gospodinjstev naroči na ultra hitre širokopasovne povezave.23 23 Za obdobje 2014–2020 si je Komisija prizadevala strateške cilje strategije Evropa 2020 prenesti v kohezijsko politiko tako, da je vanjo vključila tematske cilje, razdeljene na prednostne naložbe, povezane s krovnimi cilji strategije Evropa 2020.
The potential benefits of this move were recognised by the OECD24, Commission25 and the Parliament26. 
Potencialne koristi teh prizadevanj so prepoznali OECD24, Komisija25 in Parlament26.
In practice, however, below the political Europe 2020 aspirations, there was a complex architecture comprising five headline targets, seven flagship initiatives and 11 thematic objectives; and these various tiers were not, either individually or as a whole, designed to translate the political aspirations of Europe 2020 into useful operational objectives27. In addition, we found that all examined Member States except one failed to translate the Europe 2020 headline targets in the operational objectives in the programmes28. 
V praksi pa so politična prizadevanja v zvezi s strategijo Evropa 2020 temeljila na zapleteni strukturi, sestavljeni iz petih krovnih ciljev, sedmih vodilnih pobud in 11 tematskih ciljev, pri čemer te različne ravni niti posamezno niti kot celota niso bile zasnovane tako, da bi prenašale politična prizadevanja strategije Evropa 2020 v uporabne operativne cilje.27 Poleg tega je Sodišče ugotovilo, da nobena od držav članic, ki jih je preučilo, razen ene, ni prenesla krovnih ciljev strategije Evropa 2020 v operativne cilje programov.28 Komisija je tudi poudarila, da so lahko krovni cilji strategije Evropa 2020 uspešni le z močnim nacionalnim in regionalnim sodelovanjem ter občutkom odgovornosti v praksi.29 24 Pri kohezijski politiki so vsa razpoložljiva sredstva predhodno dodelijo državam članicam.30 Sodišče je marca 2019 objavilo hiter pregled primera, v katerem je navedenih več podrobnosti o predlaganem procesu za predhodno dodelitev sredstev iz skladov kohezijske politike državam članicam za naslednje programsko obdobje, tj. obdobje 2021–2027.31 2.
25 The allocation method has not changed substantially since it was first introduced in 1999. 
25 Metoda dodelitve se od uvedbe leta 1999 ni bistveno spremenila.
The main factor for allocating funds is regional prosperity, based on GDP per 2 The allocation of funding to Member States takes account of identified needs and is informed by performance information 2007-2013 2014-2020 2021-2027 
Glavni dejavnik za dodelitev sredstev je regionalna blaginja na podlagi BDP na prebivalca32 – glej tabelo 3 spodaj.
The link to some of the strategic objectives pursued has increased but remains limited. 
Povezava z nekaterimi strateškimi cilji se je okrepila, vendar je še vedno omejena.
Table 3 – Criteria for allocating Cohesion funding to Member States 19 Criterion 2007-2013 2014-2020 2021-2027 GDP (incl. GNI for Cohesion Fund) 83 % 86 % 81 % Labour market, education, demographics 17 % 14 % 15 % Climate 1% Migration 3% Total 100 % 100 % 100 % Source: Presentation “EU budget for the future: Regional development and Cohesion” by the Commission (for periods 2014-2020 and 2021-2027) and Commission estimate (for period 2007-2013). 
Tabela 3 – Merila za dodelitev kohezijskih sredstev državam članicam 19 Merilo 2007–2013 2014–2020 2021–2027 BDP (vključno z BND za Kohezijski sklad) 83 % 86 % 81 % Trg dela, izobrazba, demografija 17 % 14 % 15 % Podnebje 1% Migracije 3% Skupaj 100 % 100 % 100 % Vir: Predstavitev Komisije EU budget for the future: Regional development and Cohesion (za obdobji 2014–2020 in 2021–2027) in ocena Komisije (za obdobje 2007–2013) 26 Po mnenju Komisije je zaradi predhodnih dodelitev državam članicam omejena odzivnost proračuna na nastajajoče potrebe.
Except for a technical adjustment which takes place once during every programme period, there is no flexibility for re-allocating funds between Member States throughout the programme period33. The OECD considers that this inflexible aspect of the MFF marks a distinct departure from the practices of national budgeting, where annual or periodic reallocation of resources in response to changing priorities – and indeed in response to evaluations of performance and results – is the norm. 
V programskem obdobju sredstev ni mogoče predodeliti med državami članicami, razen v primeru tehnične prilagoditve, ki se izvede enkrat v posameznem programskem obdobju.33 OECD meni, da ta neprožen vidik večletnega finančnega okvira pomeni izrazito oddaljitev od nacionalnih praks priprave proračuna, pri katerih je letna ali redna predodelitev sredstev kot odziv na spreminjajoče se prioritete – ter dejansko odziv na vrednotenja smotrnosti in rezultatov – običajna.
The OECD adds that, in practice, national stakeholders see the allocations, once settled in the MFF context, as “their” money that should not be adjusted, except in extremis34. We have noted in previous audits that it is a challenge to obtain good qualitative results from schemes where absorption of funds by Member States is an implicit objective35. We consider that the allocation of funding should take account of needs and be informed by past performance information. 
OECD dodaja, da v praksi nacionalni deležniki dodelitve po tem, ko so določene v večletnem finančnem okviru, razumejo kot „njihov“ denar, ki se ne bi smel prilagajati, razen v skrajnih primerih.34 Sodišče je v prejšnjih revizijah ugotovilo, da je izziv pridobiti dobre kvalitativne rezultate s shemami, pri katerih je impliciten cilj, da države članice črpajo ta sredstva.35 Sodišče meni, da bi bilo treba pri dodelitvi sredstev upoštevati potrebe in informacije o pretekli smotrnosti poslovanja.
1. The allocation of funding to Member States should be based on the identified needs and objectives pursued 27 This implies that there should first be a needs assessment at Cohesion policy level taking into account both the Treaty-based objectives (e.g. reduce regional disparities) and other relevant strategic objectives (e.g. EU 2020 Headline target: Increasing combined public and private investment in R&D to 3 % of GDP). 
1. Dodelitev sredstev državam članicam bi morala temeljiti na opredeljenih potrebah in ciljih 27 To pomeni, da bi bilo treba najprej oceniti potrebe na ravni kohezijske politike, pri tem pa upoštevati cilje na podlagi Pogodbe (npr. zmanjšanje regionalnih razlik) in tudi druge ustrezne strateške cilje (npr. krovni cilj strategije EU 2020: povečanje skupnih javnih in zasebnih naložb v raziskave in razvoj na 3 % BDP).
This needs assessment should be translated into policy objectives, taking into account the limited EU funds available. 
To oceno potreb bi bilo treba prenesti v cilje politike in pri tem upoštevati omejena razpoložljiva sredstva EU.
The allocation of funding to Member States and their regions should be in line with these policy objectives. 
Dodelitev sredstev državam članicam in njihovim regijam bi morala biti skladna s temi cilji politike.
28 As our recently-published rapid case review (paragraph 24) sets out, the method for allocating funds takes account, to a certain extent, of Treaty based objectives (such as GDP) and evolving strategic objectives (such as some Europe 2020 related criteria). 
28 Kot je navedeno v nedavno objavljenem hitrem pregledu primera, ki ga je pripravilo Sodišče (odstavek 24), se pri metodi dodeljevanja sredstev delno upoštevajo cilji na podlagi Pogodbe (kot je BDP) in strateški cilji, ki se spreminjajo (kot so nekatera merila, povezana s strategijo Evropa 2020).
But the Commission has not attempted to allocate funding in a consistent and structured way based on needs and strategic objectives. 2. 
Vendar si Komisija ni prizadevala za skladno in strukturirano dodelitev sredstev na podlagi potreb in strateških ciljev. 2.
The allocation of funding to Member States should be informed by information on past performance 29 The OECD assessed that, despite the highly developed nature of the EU performance budgeting framework, the EU scores relatively similar to OECD countries in terms of how performance information is used to support budgetary decisions. 
Dodelitev sredstev državam članicam bi morala temeljiti na informacijah o pretekli smotrnosti 29 OECD je ocenila, da EU kljub zelo razvitemu okviru smotrnostne priprave proračuna EU dosega precej podobne rezultate kot države OECD v smislu uporabe informacij o smotrnosti poslovanja za podporo proračunskim odločitvam.
During this phase, plans for a specific programme period are developed in detail at Member State level through the formulation of a country strategy37 and related programmes. 
V tej fazi se na ravni držav članic pripravijo podrobni načrti za posebno programsko obdobje, in sicer z oblikovanjem strategije za državo37 in z njo povezanih programov.
The Commission negotiates with the national authorities on the content of both sets of programming documents before adopting them. 
Preden Komisija sprejme oba sklopa programskih dokumentov, se o njih pogaja z nacionalnimi organi.
For this stage there are four guiding principles, relating to intervention logic; targeting funding; performance measurement framework; and incentives. 
Za to fazo so oblikovana štiri vodilna načela, ki so povezana z intervencijsko logiko, usmerjanjem financiranja, okvirom za merjenje smotrnosti in spodbudami.
31 Intervention logic refers to the process of identifying which needs EU funding is designed to address, and how this might be achieved. 
31 Intervencijska logika se nanaša na proces opredelitve, katere potrebe naj bi se obravnavale s sredstvi EU in kako je to mogoče doseči.
As a first step, Member States should identify their national needs. 
Države članice bi morale najprej opredeliti svoje nacionalne potrebe.
This provides the basis for formulating objectives, targets and required funding. 
S tem bi zagotovile podlago za oblikovanje ciljev in ciljnih vrednosti ter opredelitev potrebnih sredstev.
A similar exercise should then be repeated at the level of the programmes, where the national objectives should be translated into operational objectives. 
Podobno bi bilo nato treba ponoviti na ravni programov, na kateri bi se morali nacionalni cilji prenesti v operativne cilje.
At this level, Member States should set out the links between inputs, actions, outputs and results. 
Na tej ravni bi morale države članice določiti povezave med vložki, ukrepi, izložki in rezultati.
32 The Commission identified a strong intervention logic as one of the pillars of the result orientation in the 2014-2020 programme period. 
32 Komisija je v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 prepričljivo intervencijsko logiko opredelila kot enega od stebrov usmerjenosti v rezultate.
This was largely reflected in the 2014-2020 legislative framework through, for example, the mandatory articulation of the needs at the national level, and mandatory ex ante evaluations of each 20 3 A clear intervention logic exists 2007-2013 2014-2020 2021-2027 programme focusing on the clarity of the intervention logic38. 
To se je precej odražalo v zakonodajnem okviru za obdobje 2014–2020, na primer z obvezno ubeseditvijo potreb na nacionalni ravni ter obveznim predhodnim vrednotenjem posameznega programa, osredotočenim na jasnost intervencijske logike.38 Ti koraki so privedli do jasnejše intervencijske logike na ravni partnerskih sporazumov in tudi programov.39 Tudi Evropski parlament je ugotovil, da se je intervencijska logika programov izboljšala in da so kazalniki rezultatov za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 bolje razviti.40 33 Osnutek predloga za programsko obdobje 2021–2027 odpravlja nekatere elemente, ki so prispevali k jasnejši intervencijski logiki, zlasti obvezno oceno potreb v partnerskem sporazumu in obvezno predhodno vrednotenje programov.41 34 Slabosti pri oblikovanju intervencijske logike so ena od najpogostejših ugotovitev, navedena v več kot polovici posebnih poročil, ki jih je analiziralo Sodišče.
1. There should be an adequate needs assessment 35 The starting point for programming at both partnership agreement and programme level should be identifying the needs to be addressed by the policy. 
1. Potrebna je ustrezna ocena potreb 35 Izhodišče za načrtovanje programov na ravni partnerskih sporazumov in tudi programov bi morala biti opredelitev potreb, ki jih mora obravnavati politika, vendar se to ne upošteva vedno.
21 Special report on a European high-speed rail network We found that the quality of the assessment of needs underpinning Member States’ investments in high-speed rail infrastructure is low. 
21 Posebno poročilo o evropskem železniškem omrežju za visoke hitrosti Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je kakovost ocene potreb, na kateri temeljijo naložbe držav članic v železniško infrastrukturo za visoke hitrosti, slaba.
Alternative solutions, such as upgrading existing conventional lines instead of building new high-speed lines, were only considered systematically in two of the six visited Member States (Italy and Germany)42. 2. 
Alternativne rešitve, kot je posodobitev obstoječih prog za konvencionalne hitrosti namesto gradnje novih prog za visoke hitrosti, se sistematično upoštevajo le v dveh od šestih obiskanih držav članic (Italiji in Nemčiji).42 2.
Objectives and expected results should reflect the needs 36 The second step after the analysis of needs is setting of SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound) objectives at the national and programme level that reflect what the Member States aim to change with the funds. 
Cilji in pričakovani rezultati bi morali odražati potrebe 36 Drugi korak po analizi potreb je določitev specifičnih, merljivih, dosegljivih, ustreznih in časovno določenih (SMART) ciljev na nacionalni ravni in ravni programov, ki odražajo to, kar želijo države članice s sredstvi spremeniti.
We found that objectives do not always reflect the needs and/or are unclear. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da cilji ne odražajo vedno potreb in/ali so nejasni.
Special report on Youth unemployment For the 2014-2020 period, we found that Member States did not create adequate strategies with clear objectives to reach all unemployed young people that were neither in employment, education or training (NEET). Indeed, some Member States 
22 Posebno poročilo o brezposelnosti mladih Sodišče je v zvezi z obdobjem 2014–2020 ugotovilo, da države članice niso oblikovale ustreznih strategij z jasnimi cilji za doseganje vseh brezposelnih mladih, ki niso zaposleni, se ne izobražujejo ali usposabljajo (NEET).
22 did not target all young people but only a subpopulation. 
Nekatere države članice se dejansko niso osredotočile na vse mlade, temveč le na podpopulacijo.
We found that inactive people, most detached from the labour market, benefited least from the support43. 3. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so imele najmanj koristi od podpore neaktivne osebe, ki so najbolj izgubile stik s trgom dela.43 3.
There should be an adequate assessment of the funding needed to achieve the objectives set 37 There should be adequate assessment of the required funding needed to achieve the objectives set. This has not always been the case. Special reports on implementing the EU budget through financial instruments and on Financial instruments for SMEs co-financed by ERDF Both reports highlight shortcomings in the assessment of market needs justifying the allocation of funds to financial Instruments for the 2007-2013 period44. 
Ustrezno bi bilo treba oceniti sredstva, potrebna za doseganje določenih ciljev 37 Ustrezno bi bilo treba oceniti, koliko sredstev je potrebnih za doseganje določenih ciljev, vendar se to ne upošteva vedno. ter finančnih instrumentih za MSP, ki se sofinancirajo iz ESRR V obeh poročilih so poudarjene pomanjkljivosti ocene potreb trga, s katerimi je utemeljena dodelitev sredstev finančnim instrumentom za obdobje 2007–2013.44 Sodišče je zlasti ugotovilo, da je bilo veliko finančnih instrumentov preobsežnih, iz česar je bilo razvidno, da organi upravljanja pred dodelitvijo sredstev iz programov finančnim instrumentom niso vedno ustrezno ocenili potreb trga.
This led to excessive capital endowments when setting up the financial instruments, which resulted in low disbursement rates45. 4. 
To je povzročilo čezmeren dotirani kapital pri vzpostavljanju finančnih instrumentov, kar je privedlo do nizkih stopenj izplačil.45 Posebni poročili o izvrševanju proračuna EU s finančnimi instrumenti 4.
The actions should be designed to achieve objectives and results 38 A clear intervention logic also requires the identification in the programmes of the most suitable actions to achieve the objectives and results sought. 
Ukrepi bi morali biti zasnovani tako, da bi dosegali cilje in rezultate 38 Za jasno intervencijsko logiko je v programih potrebna tudi opredelitev najustreznejših ukrepov za doseganje želenih ciljev in rezultatov.
In a number of our reports, we found that these actions were not clearly linked to the objectives and/or did not sufficiently focus on results46. 39 EU funding should be targeted so that its impact is maximised47. Cohesion policy funds should thus focus on areas of real potential and strength rather than being spread thinly over unrelated areas. 
Sodišče je v več poročilih ugotovilo, da ti ukrepi niso bili jasno povezani s cilji in/ali niso bili dovolj osredotočeni na rezultate.46 39 Sredstva EU bi morala biti ciljno usmerjena, da bi bil njihov učinek čim večji.47 Sredstva iz skladov kohezijske politike bi zato morala biti osredotočena na področja z dejanskim potencialom in močjo, namesto da so razpršena po nepovezanih področjih.
The 2014-2020 period introduced two instruments designed to improve the targeting of funding: o Financial concentration – requiring all Member States to allocate a certain proportion of their funding to common priority areas supporting the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. 
V obdobju 2014–2020 sta bila uvedena dva instrumenta, zasnovana za izboljšanje usmerjanja sredstev: o finančna osredotočenost, ki določa, da morajo vse države članice del svojih sredstev dodeliti skupnim prednostnim področjem, s čimer podpirajo izvajanje 4.
This requirement is also proposed for the 2021-2027 period48, even if it is no longer linked to an EU-wide strategy. 
Ta zahteva je predlagana tudi za obdobje 2021–202748, čeprav ni več povezana s strategijo za celotno EU.
The latter further prioritise the target groups/areas of interventions (e.g. focus on long term unemployed people or focus of on areas such as smart specialisation). In our previous audits related to the 2007-2013 programme period, we found a number of weaknesses in targeting funds on needs (see GP No 3, part 1 above)53. 
Sodišče je v prejšnjih revizijah, povezanih s programskim obdobjem 2007–2013, ugotovilo več slabosti pri usmerjanju sredstev v potrebe (glej vodilno načelo 3, del 1 zgoraj).53 Zato odobrava uvedbo strateških predhodnih pogojenosti v obdobju 2014–2020 kot način obravnavanja tega vprašanja54, čeprav njen učinek še ni viden.
Ex ante conditionalities are strengthened in the Commission’s proposal for the 2021-2027 period (where they are known as “enabling conditions”)55. 40 To assess whether the EU’s objectives are being met, the Commission needs relevant, reliable and timely information on outputs and results derived from a robust performance management system. 
Predhodne pogojenosti so v predlogu Komisije za obdobje 2021–2027 (v katerem se imenujejo omogočitveni pogoji) okrepljene.55 40 Da bi Komisija ocenila, ali se cilji EU dosegajo, potrebuje ustrezne, zanesljive in pravočasne informacije o izložkih in rezultatih iz trdnega sistema upravljanja smotrnosti poslovanja.