natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission will in particular: animate a debate on the concept of ‘good quality’ offers in the next meeting of national YG coordinators, invite Member States to discuss the concept of ‘good quality’ offer in the context of the EMCO work, explore the possibility of address‐ ing ‘good quality’ YG offers under the Mutual Learn‐ ing Programme (MLP), and provide further guidance on ‘good quality’ in the YG FAQ document. 
Komisija bo zlasti: obudila razpravo o pojmu kakovostne ponudbe na naslednjem sestanku nacionalnih koordinatorjev jamstev za mlade, povabila države članice k razpravi o pojmu kakovostna ponudba v okviru dela Odbora za zapo‐ slovanje, proučila možnost obravnave kakovostnih ponudb v okviru jamstva za mlade na podlagi pro‐ grama vzajemnega učenja ter zagotovila dodatne smernice o kakovosti v dokumentu z odgovori na pogosto zastavljena vprašanja v zvezi z jamstvom za mlade.
91 The Commission monitors the implementation of the Youth Guarantee within the European Semester, including through bilateral meetings with Member States, and through fact‐finding missions. 
91 Komisija spremlja izvajanje jamstva za mlade v okviru evropskega semestra, vključno z dvostran‐ skimi sestanki z državami članicami in misijami za ugotavljanje dejstev.
Through its membership in the Employment Com‐ mittee (EMCO) — in its preparation of Council deliberations — the Commission also contributes to the multilateral surveillance on Youth Guarantee implementation. Dedicated multilateral surveillance reviews were held by EMCO in this regard once in 2013 and twice in 2014. 
Prek članstva v Odboru za zaposlovanje, ko je ta pripravljal posvetovanja Sveta, prispeva tudi k večstranskemu nadzoru nad izvajanjem jamstva za mlade. Odbor za zaposlovanje je v zvezi s tem opravil posebne preglede v okviru večstranskega nadzora, in sicer enkrat leta 2013 in dvakrat leta 2014.
Both the May and December 2014 reviews were echoed in the following EPSCO meetings on Youth unemployment and the Youth Guarantee. 
O pre‐ gledih, opravljenih maja in decembra 2014, se je razpravljalo na naslednjih sestankih sveta EPSCO o brezposelnosti mladih in jamstvu za mlade.
Reply of the Commission 48 The Commission, where appropriate, proposes country‐specific recommendations to Member States. 
Odgovori Komisije 48 Kadar je to primerno, Komisija predlaga priporočila za posamezne države članice.
The conclusions of the EMCO multilateral reviews feed into the final CSR negotiations. 
Sklepi večstranskih pregledov, ki jih opravi Odbor za zaposlovanje, so vključeni v končna pogajanja o priporočilih za posa‐ mezne države.
EMCO endorsed an Indicator Framework for Moni‐ toring the Youth Guarantee on 22 September 2014, based on macroeconomic, implementation and follow‐up levels indicators which, taken together, will aim to provide a holistic view of Youth Guaran‐ tee schemes’ impact on the labour market situation of young people across Europe. 
Odbor za zaposlovanje je 22. septembra 2014 potrdil okvir kazalnikov za spremljanje jamstva za mlade, ki temelji na makroekonomskih kazal‐ nikih, kazalnikih izvajanja in kazalnikih obsega nadaljnjega spremljanja, katerih skupni namen bo zagotoviti celovit pregled nad učinkom programov jamstva za mlade na položaj mladih na trgu dela po vsej Evropi.
The administra‐ tive data necessary for the ‘implementation level’ is currently tested through a pilot data collection exercise in all 28 Member States, with regular data collection due to start in 2015. 
Upravni podatki, potrebni za „izved‐ beno raven“, se preskušajo v okviru poskusnega zbiranja podatkov v vseh 28 državah članicah, redno zbiranje podatkov pa naj bi se začelo leta 2015.
Key messages on the Indicator Framework were endorsed by the EPSCO Council on 11 December 2014, highlighting Mem‐ ber States’ political commitment to providing the necessary data. 
Svet EPSCO je 11. decembra 2014 potrdil ključna sporo‐ čila o okviru kazalnikov, pri čemer je bila poudar‐ jena politična zavezanost držav članic zagotavljanju potrebnih podatkov.
Measures targeting individuals will be monitored both through the Indicator Framework for Monitor‐ ing the Youth Guarantee, and in the case of meas‐ ures financed from the YEI, through the relevant arrangements that are set out in Article 19 and Annex I and II of the ESF regulation and relevant CPR provisions related to monitoring and evalua‐ tion. 
Ukrepi, namenjeni posameznikom, bodo spremljani prek okvira kazalnikov za spremljanje jamstva za mlade, v primeru ukrepov, financiranih iz PZM, pa prek ustreznih ureditev, določenih v členu 19 ter prilogah I in II k uredbi o ESS in ustreznih določbah uredbe CPR v zvezi s spremljanjem in vrednote‐ njem.
Regarding specifically the YEI, the Commis‐ sion has set up a framework for monitoring the YEI actions implemented within YG framework, by setting common indicators in its ESF regulation. 
Komisija je posebej v zvezi s PZM vzpostavila okvir za spremljanje ukrepov PZM, ki se izvajajo v okviru jamstva za mlade, tako da je v uredbi o ESS določila skupne kazalnike.
Recommendation 3 The Commission accepts the recommendation and considers it as partially implemented. through the indicators framework as endorsed by the EPSCO Council, through the relevant arrangements that are set out in Article 19 and Annex I and II of the ESF regulation and relevant CPR provisions related to monitoring and evaluation in the case of measures financed from the YEI and through its commitment to report on the implementation of the Youth Guar‐ antee to the European Parliament and the Council in 2016. 
Priporočilo 3 Komisija sprejema to priporočilo in meni, da je delno že izvedeno prek okvira kazalnikov, kot ga je potrdil Svet EPSCO, ustreznih ureditev, določe‐ nih v členu 19 ter prilogah I in II k uredbi o ESS in ustreznih določbah CPR v zvezi s spremljanjem in vrednotenjem v primeru ukrepov, financiranih iz PZM, ter na podlagi njene zaveze, da bo leta 2016 Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu poročala o izvaja‐ nju jamstva za mlade.
They will also inform the Commission’s 2016 report on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee, which will be formally submitted to the European Parlia‐ ment and the Council through the appropriate channels. 
Prav tako bodo z njimi zagotovljene informacije za poročilo Komi‐ sije o izvajanju jamstva za mlade, ki ga bo leta 2016 po ustrezni poti uradno predložila Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu.
Youth unemployment is a huge challenge facing Member States across the EU. In this regard an initiative, the Youth Guarantee, was launched by the European Council in 2013. 
Brezposelnost mladih je velik izziv za države članice po vsej EU, zato je Evropski svet leta 2013 sprožil pobudo, imenovano jamstvo za mlade.
Under this scheme, all young people under 25 should receive a ‘good quality’ offer of employment, continued education, apprenticeship or traineeship within 4 months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education. 
V okviru tega programa naj bi vsi mladi do 25. leta starosti v štirih mesecih po tem, ko postanejo brezposelni ali prenehajo s formalnim izobraževanjem, prejeli kakovostno ponudbo za zaposlitev, nadaljnje izobraževanje, vajeništvo ali pripravništvo.
It will be financed partly from the EU budget and complementary national funding will be required. 
Program bo delno financiran iz proračuna EU, potrebno pa bo tudi dopolnilno nacionalno financiranje.
With this report, the Court assessed whether the Commission has provided timely and appropriate support to the Member States in developing their Youth Guarantee Implementation Plans. 
Sodišče je v tem poročilu ocenilo, ali je Komisija zagotovila pravočasno in ustrezno podporo državam članicam pri pripravi njihovih izvedbenih načrtov za jamstvo za mlade.
In addition, the Court examined whether potential risks to the effective implementation of the scheme could be identified. 
Poleg tega je preučilo, ali je bilo mogoče ugotoviti potencialna tveganja za uspešno izvajanje programa.
EN 2015 Special Report NO 04 Technical assistance: what contribution has it made to agriculture and rural development? 
št. 04 Posebno poročilo SL 2015 Tehnična pomoč: kakšen je njen prispevek na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja?
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 Print ISBN 978-92-872-2172-8 PDF ISBN 978-92-872-2197-1 EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-2229-9 ISSN 1831-0834 ISSN 1977-5679 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/51235 doi:10.2865/062495 doi:10.2865/282990 QJ-AB-15-003-EN-C QJ-AB-15-003-EN-N QJ-AB-15-003-EN-E © European Union, 2015 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 
Luxembourg: Urad za publikacije Evropske unije, 2015 Print ISBN 978-92-872-2180-3 PDF ISBN 978-92-872-2210-7 EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-2168-1 ISSN 1831-094X ISSN 1977-5784 ISSN 1977-5784 doi:10.2865/661553 doi:10.2865/15070 doi:10.2865/81940 QJ-AB-15-003-SL-C QJ-AB-15-003-SL-N QJ-AB-15-003-SL-E © Evropska unija, 2015 Reprodukcija je dovoljena z navedbo vira.
EN 2015 Special Report NO 04 Technical assistance: what contribution has it made to agriculture and rural development? (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) 
št. 04 Posebno poročilo SL 2015 Tehnična pomoč: kakšen je njen prispevek na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja? (v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 287(4) PDEU)
Audit team 02 The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or management topics. 
Revizijska ekipa 02 Posebna poročila Evropskega računskega sodišča predstavljajo rezultate njegovih revizij smotrnosti poslovanja in skladnosti za posamezna proračunska področja ali upravljavske teme.
The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and public interest. 
Računsko sodišče izbira in načrtuje revizijske naloge tako, da je njihov učinek kar največji, in pri tem upošteva tveganje za smotrnost ali skladnost, višino ustreznih prihodkov ali porabe, prihodnji razvoj ter politični in javni interes.
The audit was led by ECA member Kersti Kaljulaid, supported by Helder Faria Viegas, head of unit; Csaba Bartos, team leader; Blanka Happach, deputy team leader; Maciej Szymura auditor; Carlos Sanchez Rivero, auditor; Roberto Resegotti, auditor; Tom Everett, drafting assistance. 
Revizijo je vodila članica Evropskega računskega sodišča Kersti Kaljulaid, pri njej pa so sodelovali vodja enote Helder Faria VIegas, vodja ekipe Csaba Bartos, pomoč-nica vodje ekipe Blanka Happach, revizorji Maciej Szymura, Carlos Sanchez Rivero in Roberto Resegotti ter prevajalec Tom Everett, ki je sodeloval pri pisanju poročila.
From left to right: B. Happach, R. Resegotti, Cs. 
Od leve proti desni: B. Happach, R. Resegotti, Cs.
Contents 03 Paragraph I–VII 1–16 1–4 5–10 11–13 14–16 17–23 17–19 20–23 24–82 24–51 26–28 29–35 36–51 52–59 52–53 54–59 Abbreviations Executive summary Introduction What is technical assistance? 
Kazalo 03 Odstavek Kratice Povzetek Uvod Kaj je tehnična pomoč?
The recent history of technical assistance in agriculture and rural development Rules and regulations Budgeting and spending levels Audit scope, objectives and approach Audit scope and objectives Audit approach Observations How is money for technical assistance actually spent? 
Tehnična pomoč na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja v zadnjem obdobju Pravila in uredbe Proračunsko načrtovanje in ravni porabe Obseg in cilji revizije ter revizijski pristop Obseg in cilji revizije Revizijski pristop Opažanja Kako se denar za tehnično pomoč dejansko porabi?
A problem of clarity At the Commission, a shift towards administrative costs In the Member States, an emphasis on payroll Are the costs eligible? 
Težava z jasnostjo Premik proti administrativnim stroškom na Komisiji V državah članicah je poudarek na izplačilih plač Ali so stroški upravičeni?
Some formal ineligibility at the Commission More frequent problems in the Member States 
Nekaj formalne neupravičenosti na Komisiji Pogostejši problemi v državah članicah I–VII 1–16 1–4 5–10 11–13 14–16 17–23 17–19 20–23 24–82 24–51 26–28 29–35 36–51 52–59 52–53 54–59
Contents 04 60–82 64–67 68–70 71–75 76–78 79–82 83–93 How suitable is the performance framework for TA? 
Kazalo 04 60–82 64–67 68–70 71–75 76–78 79–82 83–93 Kakšna je primernost okvira smotrnosti poslovanja za tehnično pomoč?
Poor planning and assessment of needs Objectives far from SMART Limited monitoring and evaluation The impact of an inadequate performance framework Networking: potential for an effective performance framework Conclusions and recommendations Annex — Financial planning of technical assistance in rural development for 2007–13 and 2014–20 Reply of the Commission 
Slabo načrtovanje in ocenjevanje potreb Cilji še zdaleč niso SMART Omejeno spremljanje in vrednotenje Učinek neustreznega okvira smotrnosti poslovanja Mreženje: potencial za uspešen okvir smotrnosti poslovanja Zaključki in priporočila Priloga — Finančno načrtovanje tehnične pomoči na področju razvoja podeželja za obdobji 2007–2013 in 2014–2020 Odgovori Komisije
Abbreviations 05 CAP: Common agricultural policy CMEF: Common monitoring and evaluation framework EAFRD: European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EAGF: European Agricultural Guarantee Fund EAGGF: European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — predecessor (1962–2006) to the EAGF and EAFRD ENRD: European Network of Rural Development RDP: Rural development programme Sapard: Special accession programme for agriculture and rural development — instrument set up to assist candidate countries (2000–06) with the necessary structural adjustments in agriculture and rural areas prior to membership of the EU 
Kratice 05 CMEF: okvir skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja EKJS: Evropski kmetijski jamstveni sklad EKSRP: Evropski kmetijski sklad za razvoj podeželja EKUJS: Evropski kmetijski usmerjevalni in jamstveni sklad, predhodnik (v obdobju 1962–2006) EKJS in EKSRP PRP: program razvoja podeželja Sapard: posebni pristopni program za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja – instrument, vzpostavljen za pomoč državam kandidatkam (2000–2006) pri potrebnih strukturnih spremembah na področju kmetijstva in podeželja pred članstvom v EU SKP: skupna kmetijska politika
Executive 06 summary ITechnical assistance (TA) has traditionally been con‐ cerned with the provision of expertise and funding to support government departments in the delivery of programmes linked to policy objectives. 
Povzetek 06 ITehnična pomoč je tradicionalno zajemala zagotavljanje strokovnega znanja in financiranja za podporo vladnim oddelkom pri izvedbi programov, povezanih s cilji politik.
In the EU’s ‘Agriculture and rural development’ policy area, TA takes the form of funding in separate areas of the common agricultural policy — the European Agricul‐ tural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (Pillar I) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (Pil‐ lar II). 
Tehnična pomoč na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja EU ima obliko financiranja na ločenih področjih skupne kmetijske politike (SKP): EKJS (prvi steber) in EKSRP (drugi steber).
Expenditure should contribute to the develop‐ ment of administrative capacity and implementation of programmes under the two pillars by the Commis‐ sion and the Member States. 
Odhodki bi morali prispevati k razvoju administrativnih zmogljivosti in izvajanju programov v okviru dveh stebrov, ki ga opravljajo Komisija in države članice.
II The Court audited the use of TA funding in agriculture and rural development during the 2007–13 period. 
II Sodišče je revidiralo uporabo financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja v obdobju 2007–2013.
By the end of 2013, the Commission and the Member States had spent half of their TA budget of 1.8 bil‐ lion euro in this policy area, with the remainder avail‐ able for spending until the end of 2015. 
Do konca leta 2013 so Komisija in države članice za to področje porabile polovico svojega proračuna za tehnično pomoč v višini 1,8 milijarde EUR, preostanek pa se lahko porabi do konca leta 2015.
III The audit focused on the management of techni‐ cal assistance and its contribution to the core policy objectives. 
III Revizija je bila osredotočena na upravljanje tehnične pomoči in njen prispevek k temeljnim ciljem politike.
This was done by examining which activi‐ ties were supported by TA funding at the Commission and in the Member States, whether the costs claimed were eligible and whether the arrangements for meas‐ uring TA performance were appropriate and effective. 
Preučeno je bilo, katere dejavnosti so Komisija in države članice podpirale s financiranjem v okviru tehnične pomoči, ali so bili prijavljeni stroški upravičeni in ali so bile ureditve za merjenje smotrnosti poslovanja pri tehnični pomoči ustrezne in uspešne.
IV The Court found that the Commission and the Mem‐ ber States have taken full advantage of the regula‐ tory flexibility in this area. However, the freedom of choice has resulted in a lack of rigour about the goals of funding and how it can be used. 
IV Revizija je pokazala, da so Komisija in države članice kar se da izkoristile regulativno prožnost na tem področju, vendar je svoboda izbire zmanjšala strogost pri namenih financiranja in načinu njegove uporabe.
For the audited period there was a move away from a ‘capacity‐build‐ ing’ understanding of TA towards support for regular administrative costs, such as payroll and IT mainte‐ nance. 
V revidiranem obdobju je prišlo do premika od razumevanja tehnične pomoči kot sredstva za vzpostavljanje zmogljivosti k njenemu dojemanju kot podpore za redne administrativne stroške, kot so izplačila plač in vzdrževanje informacijske tehnologije.
Using TA in this way raises questions about its specific contribution to overall programme goals. 
Taka uporaba tehnične pomoči sproža vprašanja o njenem posebnem prispevku k skupnim namenom programa.
Executive summary 07 V Another consequence of the Commission’s insuf‐ ficiently prescriptive approach to TA use lies in the area of eligibility. 
Povzetek 07 VPremajhna preskriptivnost Komisije pri tehnični pomoči ima posledice tudi v zvezi z upravičenostjo.
This problem has mainly arisen in the Member States, where there is largely no entitlement to TA co‐financing under Pillar I. The fact that admin‐ istrative costs are eligible under Pillar II only, or (at the Commission) have to be divided between the two pillars, has meant complex administrative procedures to justify the way they are allocated, and these are not always adequately applied. 
Ta problem se je večinoma pojavil v državah članicah, ki v glavnem nimajo pravice do sofinanciranja tehnične pomoči v okviru prvega stebra. Ker so administrativni stroški upravičeni samo v okviru drugega stebra ali pa jih je treba (na Komisiji) porazdeliti med obema stebroma, so bili potrebni zapleteni administrativni postopki za upravičevanje načina razporejanja stroškov, ti postopki pa se ne uporabljajo vedno ustrezno.
VI The use of all CAP funding is regulated by require‐ ments relating to guarantees on the appropriateness of expenditure through a monitoring and evaluation framework. 
VI Porabo vsega financiranja SKP urejajo zahteve, povezane z zagotavljanjem ustreznosti odhodkov z okvirom spremljanja in vrednotenja.
Being largely non‐operational, however, technical assistance was excluded from this frame‐ work. 
Ker tehnična pomoč večinoma ni operativna, je bila iz tega okvira izključena.
As a result, transparency and accountability are compromised and it is impossible to say whether TA resources are being used effectively and efficiently. 
Posledično sta preglednost in odgovornost ogroženi in ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali je poraba sredstev za tehnično pomoč uspešna in učinkovita.
There is also a risk that diverting funds away from capacity‐building measures linked to the core fund‐ ing objectives will penalise final beneficiaries — more especially, owing to the structure of co‐financing, in the EU’s poorer regions. 
Obstaja tudi tveganje, da bodo s preusmeritvijo sredstev od ukrepov za vzpostavljanje zmogljivosti, povezanih s temeljnimi cilji financiranja, kaznovani končni upravičenci, zaradi strukture sofinanciranja še posebno v revnejših regijah EU.
VII Overall, the Court concludes that owing to the absence of a suitable performance framework for TA expenditure in agriculture and rural development, nei‐ ther the Commission nor the Member States are able to demonstrate how well technical assistance has con‐ tributed to the general policy objectives of the CAP. 
VII Ker ni ustreznega okvira smotrnosti poslovanja za odhodke za tehnično pomoč na področju kmetijstva in razvoja podeželja, Sodišče meni, da Komisija in države članice ne morejo dokazati, kako dobro je tehnična pomoč prispevala k splošnim ciljem politik SKP.
The Court therefore makes the following recommendations. ο The Commission should clarify the scope and application of technical assistance of Member States in the area of rural development. 
Sodišče zato daje naslednja priporočila: ο Komisija naj razjasni obseg in uporabo tehnične pomoči držav članic na področju razvoja podeželja.
In par‐ ticular, it should clarify the distinction between operational/‘capacity‐building’ expenditure and eligible administrative/‘budget support’ costs, notably in the case of payroll. 
Razjasni naj zlasti razliko med operativnimi odhodki/odhodki za vzpostavljanje zmogljivosti in upravičenimi administrativnimi stroški/stroški proračunske podpore, zlasti pri izplačilu plač.
Such clarification would improve transparency about the ways funding can be used. 
Takšna razjasnitev bi izboljšala preglednost načinov uporabe financiranja.
The Commis‐ sion should closely monitor the Member States’ implementation of TA. ο The Commission should also take appropriate measures to ensure that general administrative expenditure such as regular IT maintenance is not charged to technical assistance budget lines. ο The Commission should, in future, require Member States to report administrative/‘budget support’ costs for rural development separately so as to make it more transparent that part of TA funding is spent on such support. ο The Commission and the Member States should establish a suitable performance framework for TA funding. 
Komisija naj skrbno spremlja, kako države članice izvajajo tehnično pomoč. ο Komisija naj tudi sprejme ustrezne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da se splošni administrativni odhodki, kot je redno vzdrževanje IT, ne zaračunavajo proračunskim vrsticam za tehnično pomoč. ο Komisija naj v prihodnje od držav članic zahteva, da ločeno poročajo o administrativnih stroških/ stroških proračunske podpore na področju razvoja podeželja, da bo bolj razvidno, da se del financiranja v okviru tehnične pomoči porabi za takšno podporo. ο Komisija in države članice naj vzpostavijo ustrezen okvir smotrnosti poslovanja za financiranje v okviru tehnične pomoči.
In particular, the TA needs of the Commis‐ sion and of the Member States should be prop‐ erly assessed and there should be a mechanism in place to set objectives and measure progress towards them. 
Zlasti je treba ustrezno oceniti potrebe Komisije in držav članic po tehnični pomoči in vzpostaviti mehanizem za določanje ciljev in merjenje napredka pri njihovem doseganju.
Introduction 08 What is technical assistance? 
Uvod 08 Kaj je tehnična pomoč?
01 Technical assistance (TA) in the inter‐ national context has been defined as ‘the provision of know‐how in the form of personnel, training, research and associated costs’1. It is generally delivered, in the framework of devel‐ opment aid from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop‐ ment (OECD), the United Nations (UN) and other international organisations, through expertise and advice to assist states with development programmes. 
01 Tehnična pomoč je bila na mednarodni ravni opredeljena kot zagotavljanje znanja in izkušenj v obliki osebja, usposabljanja, raziskav in s tem povezanih stroškov.1 Običajno se jo zagotavlja v okviru razvojne pomoči OECD, ZN in drugih mednarodnih organizacij s posredovanjem strokovnega znanja in nasvetov zaradi pomoči državam pri razvojnih programih.