natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The set-up must be tailored to the nature of the technological challenge to be addressed, the characteristics of the relationship between the stakeholders and the financing needs of the initiative72. 
Okvir mora biti prilagojen naravi obravnavanega tehnološkega izziva, značilnostim odnosa med zainteresiranimi stranmi in potrebam po financiranju pobude72.
JTIs are small organisations, established as Union bodies. 
Skupne tehnološke pobude so majhne organizacije, ki so ustanovljene kot organi Unije.
The legal status of a Union body obliges them to meet requirements which would normally only apply to much larger organisations in terms of staff resources. 
Pravni status organa Unije slednjega obvezuje, da izpolnjuje zahteve, ki običajno veljajo za veliko večje organizacije, kar zadeva kadrovske vire.
As a consequence on average 52 % of their staff are devoted to work on administrative tasks. 
Posledično je povprečno 52 % njihovih zaposlenih razporejenih na administrativne naloge.
In comparison, in the case of EU agencies, which are subject to the same legal requirements, only 22 % of staff73 are devoted to administrative tasks. 70 RSFF annual ex post operational report 2011. 
Za primerjavo: pri agencijah EU, za katere veljajo enake pravne zahteve, se administrativnemu delu posveča samo 22 % zaposlenih.73 70 Letno naknadno poročilo o poslovanju Sklada za financiranje na osnovi delitve tveganja (RSFF) za leto 2011.
71 19 Member States, Israel and Turkey. 
71 19 držav članic ter Izrael in Turčija.
72 European Commission's Report on ETP and JTIs: fostering public–private R & D partnerships to boost Europe’s industrial Competitiveness (revised March 2006), SEC(2005) 800. 
72 Poročilo Evropske komisije o evropskih tehnoloških platformah in skupnih tehnoloških pobudah: spodbujanje javno-zasebnih partnerstev na področju R&R za povečanje konkurenčnosti evropske industrije (revidirano marca 2006), SEC(2005) 800.
73 Figure based on the European Court of Auditors own analysis covering 22 agencies for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. 45 Special Report No 2/2013 – Has the Commission ensured efficient implementation of the seventh framework programme for research? 
73 Številke so povzete po analizi, ki jo je izvedlo Evropsko računsko sodišče in zajema 22 agencij v letih 2008, 2009 in 2010. 45 Posebno poročilo št. 2/2013 – Ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje Sedmega okvirnega programa za raziskave?
A JTI is required to apply a financial regulation, which is similar to the one used by the EU institutions. 
Skupna tehnološka pobuda mora spoštovati finančno ureditev, ki je podobna tisti, ki jo uporabljajo institucije EU.
The Staff Regulations74 apply to the staff of the JTIs. 
Za zaposlene v skupnih tehnoloških pobudah veljajo Kadrovski predpisi74.
This regulatory framework implies that each JTI is expected to have a certain number of functions: a data protection officer, a local information security officer, an internal control coordinator, an accounting officer (and a back-up), an authorising officer (and back-up), initiating agents (and back-ups), validating agents (and back-ups), an internal auditor, an IT manager and a staff committee. 
Glede na ta regulativni okvir naj bi vsaka skupna tehnološka pobuda imela določeno število funkcij: uradno osebo za varstvo podatkov, uradnika za varnost lokalnih informacij, koordinatorja za notranji nadzor, računovodjo (in njegovega pomočnika), odredbodajalca (in njegovega pomočnika), pobudnike (in njihove pomočnike), potrjevalce (in njihove pomočnike), notranjega revizorja, upravljavca IT in odbor zaposlenih.
These requirements are difficult to satisfy in an entity which employs between 13 and 31 staff. 
Tem zahtevam je v organu, ki zaposluje med 13 in 31 uslužbencev, težko zadostiti.
The financial regulation does not permit a JTI to conclude a service level agreement with another JTI. 
Finančna ureditev ne dovoljuje, da bi skupna tehnološka pobuda sklenila sporazum na ravni služb z drugo skupno tehnološko pobudo.
This prohibits the sharing of services between JTIs to reduce costs. 
To preprečuje skupno rabo služb med skupnimi tehnološkimi pobudami, da bi na ta način zmanjšale stroške.
Furthermore, the legal framework requires the approval of the governing board for a long list of decisions. 
Poleg tega pravni okvir zahteva, da dolg seznam odločitev odobri upravni odbor.
Consequently, too many administrative decisions (such as catering orders and purchase of office stationery) are brought up to the level of the governing board, thus hampering its focus on strategic issues75. 
Posledično se upravni odbor ukvarja s prevelikim številom upravnih odločitev (kot so naročila gostinskih storitev in nakup pisarniških potrebščin), kar odvrača njegovo pozornost od strateških zadev75.
THE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON JTIs LED TO DELAYED START-UPS 93. Due to the time needed to establish and implement the rules of procedure and the time needed to recruit staff, the start-up of the JTIs was slower than planned76. On average, it took 2 years to grant financial autonomy to a JTI. 
ZAHTEVE, KI JIH MORAJO IZPOLNJEVATI SKUPNE TEHNOLOŠKE POBUDE, SO VODILE K ZAKASNITVI NJIHOVEGA ZAGONA 93. Ker je bil za določitev in izvajanje poslovnika ter za zaposlitev delavcev potreben čas, je bil zagon skupnih tehnoloških pobud počasnejši, kot je bilo načrtovano.76 V povprečju sta bili potrebni dve leti, da je neka skupna tehnološka pobuda postala finančno samostojna.
This meant that the Commission remained responsible for an average of one third of the expected operational lifetime of the JTIs. 
To je pomenilo, da je Komisija ostala odgovorna povprečno tretjino pričakovane dobe delovanja skupnih tehnoloških pobud.
AND THE RISK AND CROWDING OUT EFFECT OF THE RSFF MUST BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE COMMISSION HAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED THAT A RSFF FUNDING LEADS TO INVESTMENTS ABOVE THE LEVEL THAT BENEFICIARIES WOULD HAVE UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT PUBLIC MONEY 94. The purpose of the RSFF is to finance riskier European research and innovation actions that would not be possible without such Community support77. 
Namen Sklada za financiranje na osnovi delitve tveganja (RSFF) je financiranje bolj tveganih evropskih raziskovalnih in inovacijskih ukrepov, ki jih ne bi bilo mogoče izvajati brez podpore Skupnosti.77 Da bi zadostila temu pogoju, namerava EIB financirati projekte RSFF, ki imajo notranjo oceno Dali nižjo.
Projects with such risk would normally not be funded by the EIB. 
EIB običajno ne bi financirala projektov s takšnim tveganjem.
74 Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, applicable to the staff of the EU Institutions. 
74 Kadrovski predpisi za uradnike in pogoji za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev v institucijah EU.
75 As reported during interviews with industry experts. 
75 Kot je bilo navedeno med razgovori s strokovnjaki iz gospodarstva.
76 This was confirmed by the Commission: ‘[JTIs'] internal structures were not yet working optimally and they have still to recover from the initial operational delays’, Source: Commission staff working document accompanying the annual report on the progress achieved by the joint technology initiatives joint undertakings in 2010, SWD(2012) 105. 
76 To je potrdila tudi Komisija, ki je ugotovila, da notranje strukture skupnih tehnoloških pobud še niso optimalno delovale in morajo še nadoknaditi začetne operativne zamude. Vir: Delovni dokument osebja Komisije, ki je priložen letnemu poročilu o napredku, ki so ga dosegla skupna podjetja v okviru skupnih tehnoloških pobud v letu 2010, SWD(2012) 105.
77 Annex III to Decision 2006/971/EC. 
77 Priloga III k Odločbi Sveta 2006/971/ES.
The availability of debt financing for riskier RDI projects has been particularly valuable in times of financial crisis. 
Razpoložljivost dolžniškega financiranja za bolj tvegane projekte RRI je še posebej dragocena v časih finančne krize.
The RSFF remained one of the few financial instruments available for public companies to maintain RDI activities. 
Sklad za financiranje na osnovi delitve tveganja (RSFF) je bil eden redkih finančnih instrumentov, ki so ostali na voljo javnim podjetjem, da so lahko ohranila dejavnosti RRI.
This was confirmed by the responses of RSFF beneficiaries to the Court’s survey. 
To so potrdili tudi odgovori upravičencev RSFF v anketi Sodišča.
The RSFF beneficiaries also expressed the opinion that the loans contributed to avoiding the ‘brain drain’ of highly qualified persons and sustained EU employment. 
Upravičenci RSFF so izrazili tudi mnenje, da so posojila prispevala k preprečevanju bega visokokvalificiranih oseb in ohranitvi delovnih mest v EU.
A survey among the RSFF beneficiaries revealed that access to finance was not a major barrier to beneficiaries investing in RDI. 
Anketa, izvedena pri upravičencih RSFF, je razkrila, da dostop do financiranja za upravičence ni bil velika ovira pri vlaganju v RRI.
More than half of the RSFF beneficiaries (56 %) stated that the lower interest rate was a decisive or major factor for taking a RSFF loan (see Figure 7). 
Več kot polovica upravičencev RSFF (56 %) je izjavila, da je bil odločilni ali glavni dejavnik za jemanje posojila RSFF nižja obrestna mera (glej sliko 7).
This indicates that RSFF could have a crowding out effect and that a number of RSFF projects would have been financed by commercial banks78, albeit at higher cost to the beneficiaries. 
To pomeni, da bi RSFF lahko imel učinek izrivanja in da bi več projektov RSFF financirale komercialne banke78, vendar po višji ceni za upravičence.
Given the relatively long maturity of the loans, it is too early to assess the risks taken by the EIB under the RSFF. 
Glede na relativno dolgo ročnost posojil je za ocenjevanje tveganja, ki ga je prevzela EIB v okviru RSFF, še prezgodaj.
However, the current low impairment79 rate could indicate that the RSFF loans are not necessarily as risky as expected, when the RSFF was set up. 
Vendar bi lahko trenutno nizka stopnja oslabitve79 kazala, da posojila RSFF niso nujno tako tvegana, kot je bilo pričakovano ob ustanovitvi tega sklada.
FIGURE 7 REASONS FOR TAKING A RSFF LOAN 78 72 % of the RSFF beneficiaries either disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that they had no access to other debt finance. 
78 72 % upravičencev RSFF se bodisi ne strinja bodisi nikakor ne strinja z izjavo, da niso imeli dostopa do drugega dolžniškega financiranja.
79 Only two loans of a combined value of 70 million euro have been impaired. 
79 Oslabljeni sta bili samo dve posojili s skupno vrednostjo 70 milijonov EUR.
This represents 7 % of EU contribution to cover the losses from RSFF and 1,4 % of total disbursements. 
To predstavlja 7 % prispevka EU za kritje izgub iz Sklada za financiranje na osnovi delitve tveganja (RSFF) in 1,4 % vseh izplačil.
47 The financial advantage of the loan interest rate was a decisive/major reason for taking an RSFF loan You had access to debt finance for research, development and innovation but at a higher interest rate from another private/public bank You had no access to other debt finance as there is no debt financing market for such projects You had no access to other debt finance for research, development and innovation as no commercial/public bank was willing to lend you for your project 56 % 44 % 40 % Lower interest rate as the main motivating factor 11 % 6% 0 % Source: European Court of Auditors' questionnaire to the RSFF beneficiaries. 
47 SLIKA 7 RAZLOGI ZA JEMANJE POSOJILA SKLADA ZA FINANCIRANJE NA OSNOVI DELITVE TVEGANJA (RSFF) Odločilni/glavni razlog za najem posojila RSFF je bila finančna prednost pri obrestni meri za posojilo Imeli ste dostop do dolžniškega financiranja za raziskave, razvoj in inovacije pri drugi zasebni/javni banki, vendar po višji obrestni meri Niste imeli dostopa do drugega dolžniškega 11 % financiranja, saj ni trga dolžniškega financiranja za takšne projekte Niste imeli dostopa do drugega dolžniškega financiranja za raziskave, razvoj in inovacije, saj vam nobena komercialna/javna banka ni odobrila posojila za vaš projekt 0 % 56% 44% Nižja obrestna mera kot odločilni dejavnik Dostop do posojila kot odločilni dejavnik Vir: vprašalnik Evropskega računskega sodišča za upravičence RSFF.
Access to debt as the main motivating factor 20 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Special Report No 2/2013 – Has the Commission ensured efficient implementation of the seventh framework programme for research? 
6% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Posebno poročilo št. 2/2013 – Ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje Sedmega okvirnega programa za raziskave?
48 REVISION OF THE RSFF PARAMETERS IN 2011 SHIFTED THE RISK BALANCE TOWARDS THE EU BUDGET 97. 
48 SPREMEMBA PARAMETROV SKLADA ZA FINANCIRANJE NA OSNOVI DELITVE TVEGANJA (RSFF) V LETU 2011 JE TVEGANJE PREVESILA NA PRORAČUN EU 97.
Under the initial RSFF cooperation agreement between the EIB and the European Commission, the EU budget supported a maximum loss of 50 % of the nominal loan. 
V prvotnem sporazumu o sodelovanju v Skladu za financiranje na osnovi delitve tveganja (RSFF) med EIB in Evropsko komisijo je največja izguba, ki jo je podpiral proračun EU, znašala 50 % nominalnega zneska posojila.
An amendment in December 2011 introduced a new approach based on a ‘portfolio first loss piece’. 
Decembra 2011 je bil s spremembo uveden nov pristop, ki temelji na „prvem izgubljenem deležu portfelja“.
Applying this new approach, the EIB may withdraw from the EU contribution an amount of 95 % of the impaired loan amount within the limit of the overall EU contribution. 
Z uporabo tega novega pristopa lahko EIB od prispevka EU odvzame znesek v višini 95 % zneska oslablje-nega posojila znotraj omejitve skupnega prispevka EU.
The EIB is therefore exposed to the remaining risk of 5 % of the impairment amount and to all impaired amounts above the EU contribution. 
EIB je tako izpostavljena preostalemu tveganju v višini 5 % oslabitve in vsem oslabljenim zneskom, ki presegajo prispevek EU.
Thus, the revised cooperation agreement has shifted the risks from the EIB to the EU. 
Tako se je s spremembo sporazuma o sodelovanju tveganje preneslo z EIB na EU.
If the loans turn out to be indeed of low risk, the cumulative amount of losses will not exceed the maximum EU contribution and the EU will end up bearing 95 % of the losses on impaired loans (for illustrative example see Box 6). 
Če se izkaže, da je tveganost posojil dejansko nizka, skupni znesek izgub ne bo presegel največjega prispevka EU in slednja bo prevzela 95 % izgub zaradi oslabitev posojil (za nazoren primer glej okvir 6).
The Council decision is not entirely clear on the level of risk that could be accepted by the EU. 
Sklep Sveta ni povsem jasen glede ravni tveganja, ki ga lahko sprejme EU.
BOX 6 EXAMPLE COMPARING INITIAL AND REVISED COOPERATION AGREEMENT Initial cooperation agreement The maximum EU contribution to cover a loss for a given loan was set at 50 %. 
OKVIR 6 PRIMER PRIMERJAVE PRVOTNEGA IN SPREMENJENEGA SPORAZUMA O SODELOVANJU Prvotni sporazum o sodelovanju Največji prispevek EU za kritje izgube za dano posojilo je bil določen na 50 %.
That is, for a loan of 100 million euro, a maximum of 50 million euro was blocked to cover the risk of default. 
To pomeni, da se je za posojilo v višini 100 milijonov EUR blokiralo največ 50 milijonov EUR za kritje tveganje neplačila.
If the borrower defaults on the loan, the loss for the EU would amount to 50 million euro while the EIB would bear the remainder. 
Če posojilojemalec preneha odplačevati posojilo, bi izguba za EU znašala 50 milijonov EUR, EIB pa bi prevzela odgovornost za preostanek.
Revised cooperation agreement For the same loan, the amount to be blocked from the EU contribution is set at 95 million euro. 
Spremenjeni sporazum o sodelovanju Pri enakem posojilu blokirani znesek prispevka EU znaša 95 milijonov EUR.
If the borrower defaults, the loss for the EU would be 95 million euro while the EIB would bear a loss of 5 million euro only. Special Report No 2/2013 – Has the Commission ensured efficient implementation of the seventh framework programme for research? 
Če posojilojemalec preneha odplačevati posojilo, bi izguba za EU znašala 95 milijonov EUR, EIB pa bi krila izgubo v višini samo 5 milijonov EUR. Posebno poročilo št. 2/2013 – Ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje Sedmega okvirnega programa za raziskave?
The Commission has been successful in particular in rationalising the requirements and improving its guidance documents for beneficiaries. 
Uspešna je bila predvsem pri racionalizaciji zahtev in izboljšanju svojih smernic za upravičence.
The FP7 funding model remains complex, but the simplification of the funding model is an important element of the Commission’s proposal for the rules for participation under Horizon 2020 (see paragraphs 17 to 20). 
OP je še vedno kompleksen, vendar je njegova poenostavitev pomemben element predloga Komisije za pravila za udeležbo v okviru okvirnega programa Obzorje 2020 (glej odstavke 17 do 20).
The Commission has been able to align FP7 provisions with beneficiaries’ practices in some cases, but more needs to be done in future to maximise the advantages. 
Komisiji je v nekaterih primerih uspelo uskladiti določbe 7. OP s praksami upravičencev, vendar je treba v prihodnosti storiti več, da se dosežejo čim večje koristi.
The Court notes that despite the importance given by the Commission to coherence in the FP7 preparatory acts, some aspects of FP7 implementation are affected by a lack of coherence. 
Sodišče ugotavlja, da kljub pomenu, ki ga je Komisija v pripravljalnih aktih za 7. OP pripisovala skladnosti, na nekatere vidike izvajanja 7.
FP7 beneficiaries are faced with differences which arise from the relative autonomy of the Commission services. 
OP se srečujejo z razlikami, ki so posledica relativne samostojnosti služb Komisije.
The establishment of the RCC as a high-level committee with overall responsibility is a step in the right direction to tackle incoherent rules; however, the mechanisms for identification of diverging practices are weak (see paragraphs 21 to 44). 
Ustanovitev Odbora za raziskovalna vprašanja (RCC) kot odbora na visoki ravni z vso odgovornostjo je korak v pravo smer za odpravo neskladnih pravil, vendar pa so mehanizmi za identifikacijo različnih praks šibki (glej odstavke 21 do 44).
RECOMMENDATION 1 With a view to better aligning FPs’ provisions with beneficiaries’ practices, the Commission should in Horizon 2020 aim to: — make further efforts to ensure that beneficiaries’ practices can be accepted; — reduce the requirements that the beneficiaries have to fulfil to have their cost methodology certified; — ensure that certificates on methodology provide clear benefits in terms of reduced administrative burden, so that obtaining such a certificate has clear value for money for the beneficiaries; — accept, where justified, existing national practices, such as average personnel cost methodologies, with the aim of further simplification for those beneficiaries that use them. 
PRIPOROČILO 1 Za boljšo uskladitev odločb 7. OP s praksami upravičencev bi si morala Komisija v „Obzorju 2020“ prizadevati: — še bolj zagotoviti, da je mogoče sprejeti prakse upravičencev; — zmanjšati zahteve, ki jih morajo izpolniti upravičenci za potrditev svoje metodologije za stroške; — zagotoviti, da potrdila za metodologijo prinašajo jasne koristi z vidika zmanjšanega upravnega bremena in da je pridobitev takšnega potrdila za upravičence jasno stroškovno učinkovita; — kjer je upravičeno, sprejeti obstoječe nacionalne prakse, kot so metodologije povprečnih stroškov za zaposlene, in jih še dodatno poenostaviti za tiste upravičence, ki jih uporabljajo.
Special Report No 2/2013 – Has the Commission ensured efficient implementation of the seventh framework programme for research? 50 RECOMMENDATION 2 The Commission should improve coherence in FP7 management. 
2/2013 – Ali je Komisija zagotovila učinkovito izvajanje Sedmega okvirnega programa za raziskave? 50 PRIPOROČILO 2 Komisija bi morala izboljšati usklajenost upravljanja 7.
The introduction of RCC is a step forward. 
Uvedba Odbora za raziskovalna vprašanja (RCC) je korak naprej.
The Commission should carry out in-depth analysis of the procedures in order to identify and eliminate any divergences. 
Komisija bi morala izvesti poglobljeno analizo postopkov, da bi odkrila in odpravila vse razlike.
Exceptions should be clearly justified. 
Izjeme bi bilo treba jasno utemeljiti.
The Commission should make the implementation of other research-related instruments (JTIs, Structural Funds) more consistent with framework programmes (FP7 and Horizon 2020), as a good example of how to address the European Research Area objective of better harmonisation through alignment of rules. 
Komisija bi morala poskrbeti, da bi bilo izvajanje drugih instrumentov, povezanih z raziskavami (skupne tehnološke pobude, Strukturni skladi), bolj usklajeno z okvirnimi programi (7. OP in Obzorje 2020), kar bi bilo dober zgled, kako z uskladitvijo pravil uresničiti cilj boljše usklajenosti Evropskega raziskovalnega prostora.
The Commission’s management of FP7 processes is not sufficiently robust in certain key areas. 
OP na nekaterih ključnih področjih ne upravlja dovolj učinkovito.
On the one hand, process design, improvement and information are strong areas with few weaknesses. 
Na eni strani so načrtovanje procesa, izboljšanje in informacije močna področja z maloštevilnimi pomanjkljivostmi.
On the other hand, the Commission has not fully aligned resources to support FP7 processes. 
Po drugi strani pa Komisija ni v celoti uskladila sredstev v podporo procesom 7.
The lack of harmonisation of the back-office tools and the absence of business process management tools may hamper efficient implementation. 
OP. Neusklajenost podpornih (back-office) orodij in odsotnost orodij za upravljanje poslovnih procesov lahko ovirata učinkovito izvajanje.
There are some examples of advanced tools in the Commission, which other services could learn from. 
V Komisiji je nekaj primerov naprednih orodij, ki bi jih druge službe lahko imele za dober zgled.
Furthermore, there are indications that staff utilisation varies between the themes of the Cooperation Specific Programme. 
Poleg tega obstajajo znaki, da se uporaba zaposlenih razlikuje med posameznimi temami v posebnem programu „Sodelovanje“.
In its analysis the Court used basic workload indicators which indicate that too many staff resources are used for the implementation of some themes at the cost of other themes or other Commission activities (see paragraphs 45 to 55). 
Sodišče je pri svoji analizi uporabilo osnovne kazalnike delovne obremenitve, ki kažejo, da se za izvajanje nekaterih tem uporablja preveč kadrovskih virov v škodo drugih tem ali drugih dejavnosti Komisije (glej odstavke 45 do 55).
RECOMMENDATION 3 To improve process efficiency, the Commission should ensure that resources are properly aligned: — The Commission has already started to develop a new generation of IT tools for Horizon 2020. 
PRIPOROČILO 3 Komisija bi za izboljšanje učinkovitosti procesov morala zagotoviti, da so sredstva pravilno usklajena. — Komisija je že začela razvijati novo generacijo orodij IT za Obzorje 2020.
To enable processes to be implemented efficiently, the Commission should put in place tools which integrate front-office, back-office and workflow functionalities and whose architecture is flexible to allow for rapid upgrades without negative impact on the smooth running of operations. — As regards staff, the Commission DGs should agree on workload indicators which will provide a basis for an objective assessment of staff needs for the management of the framework programme. 
Da bi omogočila učinkovito izvajanje procesov, bi morala uvesti orodja, ki vključujejo funkcije za interakcijo z upravičenci (front-office), podporne funkcije (back-office) in funkcije poteka dela ter katerih arhitektura je prilagodljiva in omogoča hitro nadgradnjo brez negativnih učinkov na nemoteno delovanje operacij. — V zvezi z zaposlenimi bi se morali generalni direktorati Komisije dogovoriti o kazalnikih delovne obremenitve, ki bodo zagotovili osnovo za objektivno oceno potreb po zaposlenih za upravljanje okvirnega programa.