natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Within the Commission, there have been DG-level initiatives to establish such databases, but the use of these tools has been rather limited and not sufficiently coordinated. 
Pri Komisiji so bile na ravni generalnih direktoratov predlagane pobude za vzpostavitev takih podatkovnih zbirk, vendar se ta orodja uporabljajo le redko in premalo usklajeno.
In particular, the preventive and deterrent impact of the Commission’s exclusion and sanctioning system 54 
Majhen je zlasti preprečevalni in odvračalni učinek sistema Komisije za 52
55 is limited, as the DGs in charge of Cohesion policy and Agriculture do not have the power to initiate an exclusion request for fraudulent economic operators supported through these funds. 
53 izključitev in sankcije, saj generalni direktorati, odgovorni za kohezijsko politiko in kmetijstvo, nimajo pooblastila za sprožitev zahtevka za izključitev goljufivih gospodarskih subjektov, ki so prejeli sredstva iz teh skladov.
In addition, Member State authorities are not obliged to take exclusion decisions into account in any financing decision involving EU money. 
Poleg tega organi držav članic v sklepih o financiranju, ki vključuje sredstva EU, niso zavezani upoštevati odločitev o izključitvi.
140 Since 2013, DGs EMPL and REGIO have had their own internally developed fraud prevention tool, ARACHNE. Such a tool has the potential to be effective, but currently it still does not contain sufficient data. 
140 GD EMPL in GD REGIO sta leta 2013 razvila ARACHNE, lastno orodje za preprečevanje goljufij, ki bi bilo lahko uspešno, vendar za zdaj ne vsebuje dovolj podatkov.
It is the responsibility of Member States to provide such information on fraudulent economic operators and the private individuals linked to them (paragraphs 76 - 88). 
Za zagotavljanje informacij o goljufivih gospodarskih subjektih in fizičnih osebah, povezanih z njimi, so odgovorne države članice (odstavki 76–88).
Recommendation 3 – Increase the use of fraud-prevention tools 3.1. 
Priporočilo 3 – Povečati je treba uporabo orodij za preprečevanje goljufij 3.1.
In relation to the rules for implementing the spending programmes in the post-2020 period, the Commission should perform a fraud risk assessment and ask Member States to carry out a detailed fraud risk assessment before adopting programmes. 
V zvezi s pravili za izvajanje programov porabe v obdobju po letu 2020 bi morala Komisija opraviti oceno tveganja goljufij in od držav članic zahtevati, da izvedejo podrobno oceno tveganja goljufij pred sprejetjem programov.
Target implementation date: 2020 3.2. 
Ciljni datum izvedbe: 2020. 3.2.
Regarding the Commission’s exclusion system, the Commission should (a) ensure that DGs use the early detection and exclusion system in direct and indirect management; (b) call on Member States to identify and flag fraudulent economic operators and the private individuals linked to them. 
Komisija bi morala v zvezi s svojim sistemom za izključitve: (a) zagotoviti, da generalni direktorati uporabljajo sistem za zgodnje odkrivanje in izključitev pri neposrednem in posrednem upravljanju; (b) pozvati države članice, naj prepoznavajo goljufive gospodarske subjekte in fizične osebe, povezanih z njimi, ter opozarjajo nanje.
The Commission should urge all Member States to actively participate in the ARACHNE database by submitting timely data and to exploit the opportunities big data offers to prevent fraudulent and irregular use of EU funds. 
Komisija bi morala odločno pozvati države članice, naj dejavno sodelujejo v podatkovni zbirki orodja ARACHNE, tako da pravočasno prispevajo podatke, ter naj priložnosti, ki jih ponujajo masovni podatki, izkoriščajo za preprečevanje goljufive in nepravilne uporabe sredstev EU.
Timeframe: end of 2019 OLAF’s administrative investigations have led to prosecution in fewer than half of cases, and resulted in recovery of less than a third of the funds 141 OLAF judicial recommendations result in the prosecution of fraudsters in around 45 % of the cases. 
Časovni okvir: do konca leta 2019 Upravne preiskave urada OLAF so pripeljale do pregona v manj kot polovici primerov, na njihovi podlagi pa je bila izterjana manj kot tretjina sredstev 141 Sodna priporočila urada OLAF privedejo do pregona goljufov le v okoli 45 % primerov.
The current system, whereby OLAF launches investigations after receiving information from other sources and whereby OLAF’s administrative investigation of 
Sedanji sistem, v katerem urad OLAF po prejetju informacij od drugih virov sproži preiskave
56 suspected fraud is often followed by a criminal investigation at national level, takes up much time in a considerable number of cases and thus it decreases the chances to achieve its ultimate goal – prosecution (paragraphs 94 - 104). 
in v katerem njegovi upravni preiskavi suma goljufije pogosto sledi kazenska preiskava na nacionalni ravni, je v mnogih primerih dolgotrajen, zato se zmanjšajo možnosti za dosego končnega cilja – pregona (odstavki 94–104).
142 In a number of cases (concerning fraud or irregularities), DGs do not consider that OLAF’s reports provide sufficient information to serve as a basis for initiating the recovery of unduly disbursed funds. 
142 V številnih primerih (v zvezi z goljufijami ali nepravilnostmi) generalni direktorat menijo, da poročila OLAF ne zagotavljajo dovolj informacij, da bi služila kot podlaga za sprožitev izterjave neupravičeno izplačanih sredstev.
In such cases, the DGs take (or outsource) further action in order to decide whether recovery is possible or they rely on evidence provided by their own audits (paragraphs 105 - 124). 
V takih primerih generalni direktorati sprejmejo nadaljnje ukrepe (ali jih naročijo zunanjim izvajalcem), da bi ugotovili, ali je izterjava mogoča, ali pa se zanašajo na dokaze, pridobljene pri lastnih revizijah (odstavki 105–124).
Recommendation 4 – Reconsider OLAF’s role and responsibilities in combatting fraud in EU spending in light of the establishment of the EPPO The Commission should reconsider OLAF’s role and responsibilities in combatting fraud in EU spending in light of the establishment of the EPPO. 
Priporočilo 4 – Ponovno je treba razmisliti o vlogi in odgovornostih urada OLAF v boju proti goljufijam pri porabi EU, odkar je bilo ustanovljeno Evropsko javno tožilstvo Komisija bi morala glede na ustanovitev Evropskega javnega tožilstva ponovno razmisliti o vlogi in odgovornostih urada OLAF v boju proti goljufijam pri porabi EU.
In particular, the Commission should propose to the European Parliament and the Council measures to give OLAF a strategic and oversight role in EU anti-fraud action. 
Komisija bi morala Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu zlasti predlagati ukrepe, s katerimi bi OLAF v delovanju EU za boj proti goljufijam prevzel strateško in nadzorno vlogo.
This could include OLAF acting as an oversight body responsible for: (a) leading the design, and monitoring and supervising the implementation, of the Commission’s anti-fraud policy, with a specific focus on providing real time detailed analysis of fraud patterns (modus operandi) and the causes of fraud; (b) co-ordinating and monitoring anti-fraud activities in Member States. 
To bi lahko vključevalo delovanje Urada kot nadzornega organa, odgovornega za: (a) vodenje oblikovanja ter spremljanje in nadzorovanje izvajanja politike Komisije na področju boja proti goljufijam, pri čemer je poseben poudarek na tem, da se v realnem času zagotavljajo podrobne analize vzorcev goljufij (način delovanja) in vzrokov goljufij; (b) usklajevanje in spremljanje dejavnosti za boj proti goljufijam v državah članicah.
Timeframe: end 2022 This Report was adopted by Chamber V, headed by Mr Lazaros S. Lazarou, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 14 November 2018. 
To poročilo je sprejel senat V, ki ga vodi Lazaros S. Lazarou, član Evropskega računskega sodišča, v Luxembourgu na zasedanju 14. novembra 2018.
For the Court of Auditors Klaus-Heiner Lehne President 
Za Evropsko računsko sodišče Klaus-Heiner Lehne Predsednik 55
Annex II — EU and Member State bodies involved in managing the risk of fraud 58 Bodies Prevention (anti-fraud governance and leadership, fraud risk assessment, anti-fraud strategies, preventive controls, intelligence) Detection (detective fraud control, fraud complaint mechanisms) Investigation (administrative and criminal) Response (Sanctions, recoveries, prosecution, performance measurement and reporting) OLAF √ √ √ IDOC √ √ Commission DGs √ √ √ Eurojust √ Europol √ National administrative authorities √ √ √ √ National judicial and law enforcement authorities √ √ √ EPPO √ √ 
Priloga II — EU in organi držav članic, ki sodelujejo pri obvladovanju tveganja goljufij 57 Organi Preprečevanje (upravljanje in vodenje boja proti goljufijam, ocena tveganja goljufij, strategije za boj proti goljufijam, preventivne kontrole, obveščevalni podatki) Odkrivanje (nadzor zaradi odkrivanja goljufij, pritožbeni mehanizmiv zvezi z goljufijami) Preiskave (upravne in kazenske) Odziv (sankcije, izterjave, pregon, merjenje smotrnosti in poročanje) Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam √ √ √ Preiskovalni in disciplinski urad (IDOC) √ √ Generalni direktorati Komisije √ √ √ Eurojust √ Europol √ Nacionalni upravni organi √ √ √ √ Nacionalni pravosodni organi in organi pregona √ √ √ Evropsko javno tožilstvo √ √
Annex III — Recent legislative initiatives in the EU’s area of the fight against fraud o The Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (PIF Directive) was adopted by the co-legislators on 5 July 2017. 
Priloga III — Novejše zakonodajne pobude EU na področju boja proti goljufijam o Direktivo o boju proti goljufijam, ki škodijo finančnim interesom Unije, z uporabo kazenskega prava (direktiva o zaščiti finančnih interesov), sta sozakonodajalca sprejela 5. julija 2017.
Member States have two years (until 6 July 2019) to transpose it into their national legislation. 
Države članice jo morajo v dveh letih (do 6. julija 2019) prenesti v svojo nacionalno zakonodajo.
It harmonises the definition of four criminal offences (fraud, corruption, money laundering and misappropriation) as well as sanctions and limitation periods. o Regulation 2017/1939 setting up the EPPO has been adopted in October 2017. 
Direktiva usklajuje opredelitev štirih kaznivih dejanj (goljufija, korupcija, pranje denarja in poneverba) ter sankcije in zastaralne roke. o Uredba 2017/1939 o ustanovitvi Evropskega javnega tožilstva je bil sprejeta oktobra 2017.
The EPPO is expected to start operating from late 2020 or early 2021 onwards in 22 Member States and will be competent to investigate crimes against the EU budget including serious cross-border VAT fraud over €10 million. o The proposal to amend the OLAF's Regulation 883/2013 (COM(2018) 338) concerning investigations conducted by the OLAF as regards cooperation with the EPPO and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations adopted in May 2018. o The new Financial Regulation entered into force in July 2018. 
Evropsko javno tožilstvo bo predvidoma začelo delovati konec leta 2020 ali v začetku leta 2021 v 22 državah članicah in bo pristojno za preiskovanje kaznivih dejanj, ki škodijo proračunu EU, vključno s hudimi čezmejnimi goljufijami na področju DDV v vrednosti več kot 10 milijonov EUR. o Predlog za spremembo Uredbe št.
Annex IV — Events triggering Member States to report cases of fraud under criminal investigation to the Commission 60 Event BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK After indictment √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ After initial sentence √ √ √ √ √ √ √ After definitive sentence-final court decision √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Other √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 
58 Priloga IV — Dogodki, zaradi katerih države članice Komisiji prijavijo primere goljufij v kazenskih preiskavah 59 Dogodek BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Po obtožnici √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Po prvotnem izreku kazni √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Po dokončnem izreku kazni – pravnomočna odločba sodišča √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Drugo √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Annex VI — List of references Alina Mungiu-Pippidi (2013), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Controlling corruption in the European Union, Berlin. 
Priloga VI — Viri Alina Mungiu-Pippidi (2013), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Controlling corruption in the European Union, Berlin.
Fabio Giuffrida, ‘The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: King without kingdom?’(2017), CEPS Research Report No 3/2017, p. 
Fabio Giuffrida, The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: King without kingdom? (2017), raziskovalno poročilo CEPS št. 3/2017, str.
Golden, Miriam and Picci, Lucio (2005), Proposal for a New Measure of Corruption, and Tests using Italian Data, Economics and Politics. 
Golden, Miriam, in Picci, Lucio (2005), Proposal for a New Measure of Corruption, and Tests using Italian Data, Economics and Politics.
17, 2005, pp. 37-75. 
Letnik 17, 2005, str. 37–75.
Mark Button and Jim Gee (2015), The financial cost of fraud 2015 - What the latest data from around the world shows, PKF Littlejohn LLP and PKF; See also Brooks, G., Button, M. and Gee, J. 
Mark Button in Jim Gee (2015), The financial cost of fraud 2015 – What the latest data from around the world shows, PKF Littlejohn LLP and PKF; glej tudi Brooks, G., Button, M., in Gee, J.
(2012), The scale of healthcare fraud: a global evaluation, Security Journal, Vol. 
(2012), The scale of healthcare fraud: a global evaluation, Security Journal, letnik 25, št.
Mark Button, Chris Lewis, David Shepherd, Graham Brooks and Alison Wakefield (2012), Fraud and Punishment: Enhancing Deterrence Through More Effective Sanctions, Centre for Counter Fraud Studies, University of Portsmouth. 
Mark Button, Chris Lewis, David Shepherd, Graham Brooks in Alison Wakefield (2012), Fraud and Punishment: Enhancing Deterrence Through More Effective Sanctions, Center za raziskavo boja proti goljufijam, Univerza v Portsmouthu.
Mihaly Fazekas and Peter Lawrence King (2018), Perils of development funding? 
Mihaly Fazekas in Peter Lawrence King (2018), Perils of development funding?
Regulation & Governance 2018, pp. 14-15. 
Regulation & Governance 2018, str. 14–15.
Mihaly Fazekas and Gábor Kocsis (2017), Uncovering High-Level Corruption: Cross-National Corruption Proxies Using Public Procurement Data. 
Mihaly Fazekas in Gábor Kocsis (2017), Uncovering High-Level Corruption: Cross-National Corruption Proxies Using Public Procurement Data.
British Journal of Political Science, av. online. 
British Journal of Political Science, dostopno na spletu.
Mihaly Fazekas, István János Tóth and Peter Lawrence King (2016), An Objective Corruption Risk Index Using Public Procurement Data. 
Mihaly Fazekas, István János Tóth in Peter Lawrence King (2016), An Objective Corruption Risk Index Using Public Procurement Data.
European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 22(3), pp. 369–397. 
European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 22(3), str. 369–397.
Mihaly Fazekas and István János Tóth (2017), Corruption in EU Funds? 
Mihaly Fazekas in István János Tóth (2017), Corruption in EU Funds?
In J. Bachtler et al (Eds.), EU Cohesion Policy. 
V: J. Bachtler et al (ur.), EU Cohesion Policy.
13. 
Poglavje 13.
Jajkowicz, O. and Drobiszova, A. 
Jajkowicz, O., in Drobiszova, A.
(2015), The Effect of Corruption on Government Expenditure Allocation in OECD Countries, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Volume 63. 
(2015), The Effect of Corruption on Government Expenditure Allocation in OECD Countries, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, letnik 63.
Glossary Better regulation: The design of policies and laws so that they achieve their objectives at minimum cost. 
Glosar Boljše pravno urejanje: zasnova politik in zakonov, ki omogoča dosego njihovih ciljev s kar najmanjšimi stroški.
Better regulation is about making sure that the EU actually delivers on the ambitious policy goals it has set itself. 
Pri boljšem pravnem urejanju gre za to, da Evropska unija dejansko doseže ambiciozne cilje politik, ki si jih je zastavila.
It is about ensuring that the policy solution chosen is the best and least burdensome way to reach those objectives. 
Gre za zagotavljanje, da je izbrana rešitev na področju politike najboljši in najmanj obremenjujoč način za doseganje teh ciljev.
It is a way of working to ensure that political decisions are prepared in an open, transparent manner, informed by the best available evidence and backed by the comprehensive involvement of stakeholders. 
Tako se zagotovi, da se politične odločitve pripravijo na odprt in pregleden način ter da temeljijo na najboljših razpoložljivih dokazih in intenzivnem sodelovanju deležnikov.
Corruption: Corruption is the abuse of power for private gain. 
Korupcija: korupcija je zloraba moči zaradi zasebne koristi.
It comprises of any act or omission that misuses official authority, or seeks to influence the misuse of official authority, in order to obtain an undue benefit. 
Pomeni vsako dejanje ali opustitev dejanja, s katero storilec zlorabi javno oblast ali skuša doseči zlorabo javne oblasti, da bi pridobil neupravičeno korist.
Error: An irregularity arising from non-compliance with legal and contractual requirements. 
Napaka: nepravilnost, ki nastane zaradi neupoštevanja zakonskih in pogodbenih zahtev.
Impact assessment: Impact assessments contribute to EU decision-making processes by systematically collecting and analysing information on planned interventions and estimating their likely impact. 
Ocena učinka: ocene učinka prispevajo k procesom odločanja s sistematičnim zbiranjem in analiziranjem informacij o načrtovanih intervencijah in ocenjevanjem njihovega verjetnega učinka.
Impact assessments must be carried out for all major policy initiatives (i.e. those presented in the annual policy strategy (APS) or, later, as part of the Commission’s legislative work programme (CLWP)), with some clearly defined exceptions. 
Ocenjevanje učinka je treba opraviti za vse glavne politične pobude (torej vse tiste, ki so navedene v letni strategiji politik ali pozneje v zakonodajnem delovnem programu Komisije), z nekaterimi jasno opredeljenimi izjemami.
In addition, other significant initiatives can be covered on a case-by-case basis. 
Poleg tega se lahko učinek glede na posamezni primer oceni tudi za druge pomembne pobude.
Primary administrative or judicial finding (PACA): A ‘primary administrative or judicial finding’ is a first written assessment by a competent authority, either administrative or judicial, concluding on the basis of specific facts that an irregularity has been committed. 
Prva upravna ali sodna ugotovitev: pomeni prvo pisno oceno pristojnega upravnega ali sodnega organa, ki na podlagi določenih dejstev ugotavlja obstoj nepravilnosti.
It may subsequently be revised or withdrawn as a result of developments in the course of the administrative or judicial procedure. 
Ta ugotovitev je lahko pozneje spremenjena ali umaknjena zaradi poteka upravnega ali sodnega postopka.
Protection of the European Union’s financial interests (PIF): Protection of the EU’s financial interests is a key element of the EU policy agenda to strengthen and increase the confidence of citizens and ensure that their money is used properly. 
Zaščita finančnih interesov Evropske unije: zaščita finančnih interesov EU je bistven element politične agende EU za utrditev in povečanje zaupanja državljanov ter zagotavljanje pravilne porabe njihovega denarja.
It concerns not only the management of budget appropriations, but extends to all measures which negatively affect its assets and those of the Member States, to the extent that those measures are relevant to EU policies. 66 
Ne nanaša se le na upravljanje proračunskih sredstev, temveč na vse ukrepe, ki negativno vplivajo na sredstva Unije in sredstva držav članic, kolikor so ti ukrepi povezani s politikami EU. 65
REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO THE SPECIAL REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS "FIGHTING FRAUD IN EU SPENDING: ACTION NEEDED" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Commission agrees with the ECA on the importance of fighting fraud in EU spending and therefore welcomes the decision of the Court to do a Special Report on the topic. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE NA POSEBNO POROČILO EVROPSKEGA RAČUNSKEGA SODIŠČA „BOJ PROTI GOLJUFIJAM PRI PORABI EU: POTREBNI SO UKREPI“ POVZETEK Uvod Komisija se strinja z Evropskim računskim sodiščem, da je boj proti goljufijam pri porabi EU pomemben, zato pozdravlja njegovo odločitev, da o tej temi pripravi posebno poročilo.
It is a complex and multi-faceted subject matter that challenges any observer attempting to get an overview. 
Gre za zapleteno in večplastno zadevo, ki vsakemu opazovalcu, ki želi dobiti pregled, predstavlja izziv.
This challenge is heightened by factors such as the joint responsibility of the Commission and the Member States for the protection of the financial interests of the EU and the multitude of actors involved in the fight against fraud at both levels. 
Ta izziv je še toliko večji zaradi dejavnikov, kot sta skupna odgovornost Komisije in držav članic za zaščito finančnih interesov EU ter veliko število akterjev, vključenih v boj proti goljufijam na obeh ravneh.
The ECA, although an experienced observer, does not take these factors fully into account. 
Čeprav je Evropsko računsko sodišče izkušen opazovalec, teh dejavnikov ne upošteva v celoti.
Because of the importance it attaches to financial management and control in general, and to fighting fraud specifically, the Commission created OLAF and reformed its entire system for financial management and control almost 20 years ago, allowing the College of Commissioners to take overall political responsibility for the management of the budget. 
Komisija je zaradi pomena, ki ga pripisuje finančnemu upravljanju in nadzoru na splošno ter zlasti boju proti goljufijam, pred skoraj 20 leti ustanovila urad OLAF ter preoblikovala celoten svoj sistem finančnega upravljanja in nadzora, kar je kolegiju komisarjev omogočilo, da prevzame splošno politično odgovornost za upravljanje proračuna.
The architecture of this system has since been continuously improved and refined through sustained efforts by the Commission, not least thanks to successive audits by the ECA (notably two Special Reports on OLAF in 2005 and 2011). 
Arhitektura tega sistema se od takrat nenehno izboljšuje in izpopolnjuje ob vztrajnih prizadevanjih Komisije, ne nazadnje tudi po zaslugi revizij Evropskega računskega sodišča (zlasti dveh posebnih poročil o uradu OLAF iz let 2005 in 2011).
These efforts have been intensified in recent years, with the first CAFS of 2011 which is currently being updated, the creation of EDES in 2016, the updated internal control framework of 2017, the new Financial Regulation of 2018, the recent proposal to revise the OLAF Regulation and the ongoing process of setting up the EPPO, just to mention a few of numerous initiatives. 
Ta prizadevanja so se v zadnjih letih okrepila, in sicer s prvo strategijo Komisije za boj proti goljufijam iz leta2011, ki se trenutno posodablja, vzpostavitvijo sistema za zgodnje odkrivanje in izključitev leta 2016, posodobljenim okvirom notranje kontrole iz leta 2017, novo finančno uredbo iz leta 2018, nedavnim predlogom za revizijo uredbe o uradu OLAF in postopkom ustanavljanja Evropskega javnega tožilstva (v nadaljnjem besedilu: EJT), ki je v teku, če omenimo samo nekatere od številnih pobud.
The Commission also considers that the benefits of these initiatives, and the overall progress achieved in the past years aimed at reinforcing the financial management and control system of the Commission, are substantial. 
Komisija tudi meni, da so koristi teh pobud in splošni napredek, dosežen v zadnjih letih pri krepitvi sistema finančnega upravljanja in nadzora Komisije, znatni.