natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
31.7.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/5 Objectives and tasks: Ń the objectives remain the same, Ń the duration of ERF II will be six years (five years for ERF I), Ń the definition of target groups has not changed substantially, Ń ERF II introduces multiannual programming periods of three years, Ń ERF II describes the actions (reception, integration, voluntary return) in greater detail and also allows for a combination of all three, Ń for ERF II the Community actions put the emphasis on transnational actions or actions of interest to the Community as a whole. 
7. 31.
Implementation and management provision: Ń the management of the ERF remains shared. 
Določbe o izvajanju in vodenju: — Vodenje ESB ostaja deljeno.
The responsibilities of the Commission and the Member States are described in greater detail for ERF II, Ń the selection criteria have not changed, Ń deadlines for the submission of relevant documentation have been extended, Ń the distribution of funds continues to be based mainly on statistical data on refugees and asylum seekers. 
Odgovornosti Komisije in držav članic so za ESB II opisane podrobneje. — Izbirna merila se niso spremenila. — Roki za predložitev ustrezne dokumentacije so se podaljšali. — Razdeljevanje sredstev še vedno večinoma temelji na statističnih podatkih o beguncih in prosilcih za azil.
Financial management and supervision: Ń the ERF II co-financing is still 50 % (75 % for Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund). 
Finančno poslovodenje in nadzor: — Sofinanciranje pri ESB II še vedno znaša 50 % (75 % za države članice, ki jih zajema Kohezijski sklad).
But the 50 % contribution may be increased to 60 % for particularly innovative actions, Ń the deadlines and requirements for payments are more precisely indicated for ERF II, Ń the first pre-financing is still 50 % of the ERF co-financing, while the second pre-financing may amount to a maximum of 50 % (instead of 30 % for ERF I), Ń for ERF II, at least 10 % of the total eligible expenditure must be checked, for ERF I it was 20 %. 
Vendar se prispevek v višini 50 % lahko poveča na 60 % za posebno inovativne dejavnosti. — Roki in zahteve za plačila so za ESB II natančneje opredeljeni. — Prvo predplačilo še vedno znaša 50 % sofinanciranja ESB, drugo predplačilo pa lahko znaša največ 50 % (namesto 30 % pri ESB I). — Pri ESB II je treba preveriti vsaj 10 % vseh upravičenih odhodkov, pri ESB I pa jih je bilo treba preveriti 20 %.
Monitoring, evaluation and reports: Ń for ERF II the Commission is to carry out regular monitoring in cooperation with the Member States, Ń for ERF II, obligations regarding evaluation have been enhanced: the Fund is to be evaluated regularly by the Commission in partnership with the Member States to assess the relevance, effectiveness and impact of actions. 
Spremljanje, vrednotenje in poročila: — Pri ESB II Komisija opravlja redno spremljanje v sodelovanju z državami članicami. — Pri ESB II so bile obveznosti glede vrednotenja okrepljene, Komisija bo v sodelovanju z državami članicami redno vrednotila Sklad, da oceni ustreznost, uspešnost in vpliv dejavnosti.
A review of the ERF II rules showed that the recommendations presented in this report have not been acted upon in ERF II. 
Pregled pravil ESB II je pokazal, da se pri ESB II ni ukrepalo po priporočilih, predstavljenih v tem poročilu.
The Commission has also proposed a framework programme for the period 2007 to 2013 which would include the ERF. 
Komisija je predlagala tudi okvirni program za obdobje od leta 2007 do 2013, ki bi vključeval ESB.
Audit scope, objectives and approach 14. 
Revizijski obseg, cilji in pristop 14.
The Court carried out an audit of the management of the first phase of the European Refugee Fund (2000 to 2004). 
Sodišče je opravilo revizijo vodenja prve faze Evropskega sklada za begunce (od leta 2000 do 2004).
In the context of this audit and the annual Statements of Assurance for 2003 and 2004 (1), the relevant Commission services (DG JLS and Eurostat) in Brussels and Luxembourg were audited. 
V okviru te revizije in letnih izjav o zanesljivosti za leti 2003 in 2004 (1) so bile revidirane ustrezne službe Komisije (GD JLS in Eurostat) v Bruslju in Luxembourgu.
In addition, responsible national authorities and final beneficiaries were visited in the following Member States: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
Poleg tega so bili obiskani pristojni nacionalni organi in končni upravičenci v naslednjih državah članicah: Avstriji, Franciji, Nemčiji, Grčiji, Italiji, Španiji, na Švedskem in v Združenem kraljestvu.
According to the ERF rules (2), the Commission had to submit a final report to the European Parliament and the Council by 1 September 2005. 
V skladu s pravili ESB (2) je morala Komisija predložiti končno poročilo Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu do 1. septembra 2005.
The Court could not take into consideration the results of the final report, as it was finalised after the completion of the CourtŐs audit. 
Sodišče ni moglo upoštevati rezultatov končnega poročila, saj je postalo dokončno šele po dokončanju revizije Sodišča.
Basis for the distribution of amounts 17. 
Osnova za razdeljevanje zneskov 17.
ERF funds were distributed annually and were composed of a small fixed amount and a larger variable amount. 
Sredstva ESB so se razdeljevala letno, sestavljena pa so bila iz nižjega stalnega zneska in višjega spremenljivega zneska.
The fixed amount has decreased from 500 000 euro per Member State for 2000 to 100 000 euro for 2004. 
Stalni znesek se je znižal s 500 000 EUR na državo članico v letu 2000 na 100 000 EUR v letu 2004.
(1) Chapter 6, pp. 200 to 202, of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2003 (OJ C 293, 30.11.2004); Chapter 6, pp. 165 to 166, 176 of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2004 (OJ C 301, 30.11.2005). 
(1) Poglavje 6, str. 200–202 Letnega poročila za proračunsko leto 2003, (UL C 293, 30.11.2004); poglavje 6, str.
(2) Article 20 of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(2) Člen 20 Odločbe 2000/596/ES.
C 178/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2007 18. 
C 178/6 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 31.7.2007 18.
The variable part of the annual allocation was distributed to the Member States in proportion to the number of third country nationals or stateless persons they had received (1) during the three years preceding the programme year. 
Spremenljivi del letnih dodeljenih sredstev je bil državam članicam razdeljen sorazmerno s številom sprejetih državljanov tretjih držav ali oseb brez državljanstva (1) v treh letih pred programskim letom.
65 % of this allocation was based on the number of asylum seekers, while 35 % of the allocation was based on the number of refugees (2). 
65 % teh dodeljenih sredstev je temeljilo na številu prosilcev za azil, 35 % dodeljenih sredstev pa na številu beguncev (2).
The distribution of funds for the years 2000 to 2004 is presented in Annex II. 
Razdelitev sredstev med letoma 2000 in 2004 je prikazana v Prilogi II.
The description of the allocation procedure is shown in Annex III. 
Postopek dodeljevanja sredstev je opisan v Prilogi III.
The basis for the variable part of the annual allocation had to be the most recent figures established by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) (3), which were provided by the Member States Statistical data used as allocation basis were incomplete and not reliable 20. 
Osnova za spremenljivi del letnih dodeljenih sredstev so morali biti najnovejši podatki, ki jih je zbral Statistični urad Evropskih skupnosti (Eurostat) (3), predložile pa so jih države članice. Statistični podatki, uporabljeni kot osnova za dodeljevanje sredstev, so bili nepopolni in nezanesljivi 20.
The Council Decision provided for a transitional period, in which data supplied by Member States could be used if Eurostat statistics were incomplete. 
V Odločbi Sveta je predvideno prehodno obdobje, v katerem se lahko uporabljajo podatki, ki jih predložijo države članice, če so statistični podatki Eurostata nepopolni.
This transitional period should have been limited to ERF 2000 and 2001, but it was extended to ERF 2002 and 2003. 
Prehodno obdobje bi moralo biti omejeno na ESB 2000 in 2001, vendar je bilo podaljšano na ESB 2002 in 2003.
It took the Commission until 2005, after several years of preparatory actions, to make a proposal on harmonising Community statistics on migration and international protection (4). 
Komisija je šele leta 2005, po več letih pripravljalnih dejavnosti, pripravila predlog o uskladitvi statističnih podatkov Skupnosti o selitvah in mednarodni zaščiti (4).
In its proposal the Commission pointed out that Ôthere are particular concerns about the large amounts of data that are missing from the data collections. 
V predlogu je Komisija poudarila, da so posebno „zaskrbljujoče velike količine podatkov, ki manjkajo v podatkovnih zbirkah.
There are also serious problems relating to a lack of harmonisation Ń both in terms of the data sources used and the definitions applied to the statisticsŐ (5). 
Resne težave so tudi povezane s pomanjkanjem usklajevanja – tako glede uporabljenih podatkovnih virov kot glede opredelitev, ki se uporabljajo za statistične podatke“ (5).
Another point is that the reliability of the data is questionable as long as they have been verified at Member State level neither by the Commission nor the Member State. 
Poleg tega je vprašljiva zanesljivost podatkov, dokler jih niti Komisija niti država članica ne preverita na ravni države članice.
Differences in interpretation among Member States distort the basis 23. 
Razlike pri razlagi držav članic izkrivljajo osnovo 23.
The definition of target groups has been interpreted differently by Member States and changed inside some Member States over the years. 
Države članice so različno razlagale opredelitev ciljnih skupin in v nekaterih državah članicah se je z leti spreminjala.
(1) Article 3 of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(1) Člen 3 Odločbe 2000/596/ES.
(2) Article 10(2) of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(2) Člen 10(2) Odločbe 2000/596/ES.
(3) Article 10(3) of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(3) Člen 10(3) Odločbe 2000/596/ES.
(4) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection COM(2005) 375 final Brussels, 14 September 2005, 2005/0156 (COD). 
(4) Predlog uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o statističnih podatkih Skupnosti o selitvah in mednarodni zaščiti COM(2005) 375 konč., Bruselj, 14. september 2005, 2005/0156 (COD).
(5) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection COM(2005) 375 final Brussels, 14 September 2005, 2005/0156 (COD), p. 
(5) Predlog uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o statističnih podatkih Skupnosti o selitvah in mednarodni zaščiti COM(2005) 375 konč., Bruselj, 14. september 2005, 2005/0156 (COD), str.
Revisions of previously validated data were not taken fully into account for future distributions or were not adequately documented 24. 
Spremembe predhodno potrjenih podatkov niso bile v celoti upoštevane pri prihodnjih razdeljevanjih ali niso bile ustrezno dokumentirane 24.
Over the entire ERF I period, some of the figures that had been validated one year were modified in subsequent years. 
V celotnem obdobju ESB I so se nekateri podatki o številu, ki so bili v potrjeni v določenem letu, v naslednjih letih spremenili.
The revision of official statistics is a common practice and is not criticised as such. 
Spreminjanje uradnih statističnih podatkov je običajna praksa in sama po sebi ni predmet kritike.
Nonetheless, when the Commission revises the statistics ex post, it should take account of the revised information not only for current distributions but also for previous yearsŐ distributions. 
Vendar pa bi morala Komisija, kadar naknadno spreminja statistične podatke, upoštevati spremenjene informacije ne le pri tekočem razdeljevanju sredstev, temveč tudi pri razdeljevanju sredstev prejšnjega leta.
In a number of cases, where the allocation of funds was based on modified statistics, there was no documentation available on the reasons why changes had been made either at DG JLS or at Eurostat. 
V številnih primerih, kjer je dodelitev sredstev temeljila na spremenjenih statističnih podatkih, ne pri GD JLS ne pri Eurostatu ni bilo na voljo dokumentacije o razlogih za spremembe.
(6) CIREA (Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum) annual report for 1999 and 2000. 
(6) Letno poročilo Centra za informiranje, razpravo in izmenjavo podatkov o azilu (CIREA) za leti 1999 in 2000.
(7) CIREA annual report for 1999 and 2000 and Monthly statistics on asylum report Ń August 2002. Ń For most countries, the number of asylum applications indicated the number of individuals; in some countries, in contrast, e.g. the United Kingdom and France, it indicated the number of cases (one ÔcaseŐ may include family members in addition to the principal applicant) (6). 
(7) Letno poročilo Centra za informiranje, razpravo in izmenjavo podatkov o azilu (CIREA) za leti 1999 in 2000 ter poročilo o mesečnih statističnih podatkih o azilu – avgust 2002. — V večini držav je število prošenj za azil označevalo število posameznikov; nasprotno pa je v nekaterih državah, npr. v Združenem kraljestvu in Franciji, označevalo število primerov (en „primer“ lahko vključuje družinske člane poleg glavnega prosilca) (6). — Nekatere države članice (Švedska, Irska, Finska in Avstri-ja) niso razlikovale med prvimi prošnjami in ponovnimi prošnjami. — V Nemčiji je število prošenj za azil v letu 1999 označevalo število primerov, podatki za avgust 2002 pa so označevali število posameznikov (7). — V Franciji so bila zabeležena večja odstopanja med podatki, predloženimi v letih 2002 in 2003.
The 2003 ERF figures for asylum applications included persons benefiting from Ôterritorial asylumŐ, a new category not included in 2002. 
Podatki ESB za leto 2003 o številu prošenj za azil so vključevali osebe, upravičene do „teritorialnega azila“, nove kategorije, ki v letu 2002 ni bila vključena.
As an example, a data revision occurred between 2002 and 2003 in France, for which the number of persons declared was increased by 17 606 (the total number of persons declared for France for ERF 2003; cumulative total for the years 1999 to 2001: 238 947). 
Do spremembe je na primer prišlo med letoma 2002 in 2003 v Franciji, kjer se je število prijavljenih oseb povečalo za 17 606 (skupno število prijavljenih oseb za Francijo za ESB 2003; skupno v letih od 1999 do 2001: 238 947).
In the case of Italy, the Commission reduced the allocation significantly for 2004 (0,7 million euro) compared with the year 2003 (2,4 million euro), mainly because it was not able to validate the previous yearsŐ statistics on the number of persons declared by Italy for the reference period 2001. 
Komisija je za Italijo bistveno zmanjšala dodeljena sredstva za leto 2004 (0,7 milijona EUR) v primerjavi z letom 2003 (2,4 milijona EUR), predvsem zato, ker Komisija ni mogla potrditi statističnih podatkov iz prejšnjega leta o številu oseb, ki jih je prijavila Italija za referenčno obdobje 2001.
31.7.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/7 25. 
31.7.2007 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 178/7 25.
The difficulties encountered could have been avoided if the ERF had been based on reliable and harmonised data from the beginning. 
Težavam bi se lahko izognili, če bi ESB že od začetka temeljil na zanesljivih in usklajenih podatkih.
For ERF II the definition of target groups has not changed significantly (1) and the allocation of funds continues to be based on statistics produced by Eurostat (2) and those statistics have not yet been harmonised. 
Pri ESB II se opredelitev ciljnih skupin ni bistveno spremenila (1) in dodeljevanje sredstev še vedno temelji na statističnih podatkih Eurostata (2), ti statistični podatki pa še vedno niso usklajeni.
WAS THE MANAGEMENT BY THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES SOUND? 
SO KOMISIJA IN DRŽAVE ČLANICE DOBRO VODILE SKLAD?
ERF implementing rules were published late 26. 
Izvajalska pravila za ESB so bila objavljena pozno 26.
As the ERF was a new programme, the Member States ought to have been given clear management guidelines from the start of the programme. 
Ker je bil ESB nov program, bi bilo treba državam članicam že od začetka programa dati jasne smernice za vodenje.
The Commission published the rules governing eligibility of expenditure (3) in April 2001, six months after the launch of the ERF. 
Komisija je objavila pravila za urejanje upravičenosti odhodkov (3) aprila 2001, šest mesecev po začetku ESB.
However, the Commission published the detailed rules for management and control systems more than 18 months after ERF had been established. 
Vendar je podrobna pravila za sisteme vodenja in kontroliranja Komisija objavila več kot 18 mesecev po vzpostavitvi ESB.
Low efficiency of the allocation procedure 27. 
Nizka učinkovitost postopka dodeljevanja sredstev 27.
The allocation procedure was cumbersome in design and subject to delays and inefficiencies in practice. 
Postopek dodeljevanja sredstev je bil okorno zasnovan, v praksi pa je pri njem prihajalo do zamud in neučinkovitosti.
The allocation procedure for ERF I set out in EU legislation was as follows: Ń by 1 June the Commission was required to inform Member States of their estimated allocations for the following year, Ń Member States had until 1 October to submit a request for co-financing, Ń the Commission was required to approve requests for co-financing within three months (i.e. at the latest by the end of December), a Commission decision on co-financing had to be approved, Ń the Commission was required to make an initial payment (i.e. 50 % of the sum due) as soon as it had adopted a decision on co-financing (with subsequent interim and final payments). 
Postopek dodeljevanja sredstev za ESB I, določen v zakonodaji EU, je bil naslednji: — Komisija je morala do 1. junija obvestiti države članice o zanje predvidenih dodeljenih sredstvih za naslednje leto, — države članice so morale predložiti prošnjo za sofinanciranje do 1. oktobra, — Komisija je morala odobriti prošnje za sofinanciranje v roku treh mesecev (torej najpozneje do konca decembra), odločba Komisije o sofinanciranju pa je morala biti odobrena, — Komisija je morala izvršiti prvo predplačilo (in sicer 50 % dogovorjenega zneska) takoj po sprejetju odločbe o sofinanciranju (z nadaljnjimi vmesnimi in končnimi plačili).
In the context of the distribution of resources to each Member State, it is unclear what role the request for co-financing was intended to play. 
Ni jasno, kakšno vlogo naj bi imela prošnja za sofinanciranje v kontekstu razdelitve sredstev vsaki državi članici.
As explained in paragraph 18 above, allocations were based exclusively on asylum and refugee figures. 
Kot je pojasnjeno v odstavku 18, je dodeljevanje sredstev temeljilo izključno na podatkih o azilu in beguncih.
(1) Article 3 of Decision 2004/904/EC. 
(1) Člen 3 Odločbe 2004/904/ES.
(2) Article 17(3) of Decision 2004/904/EC. 
(2) Člen 17(3) Odločbe 2004/904/ES.
(3) Article 14(2) of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(3) Člen 14(2) Odločbe 2000/596/ES.
In practice the timetable for allocation and payment was subject to significant delays. 
V praksi so se pri časovnem razporedu za dodeljevanje sredstev in plačil dogajale znatne zamude.
In each year there were two, not one, Commission decisions on co-financing: a first decision based on the draft budget for the coming year, and a revised decision based on the budget that was finally adopted. 
Vsako leto sta bili odločbi Komisije o sofinanciranju dve namesto ene: prva odločba je temeljila na predlogu proračuna za naslednje leto, spremenjena odločba pa je temeljila na sprejetem proračunu.
These decisions were typically taken several weeks after the relevant steps in the budgetary procedure. 
Te odločbe so bile ponavadi sprejete več tednov po ustreznih fazah proračunskega postopka.
The Commission only made payments to Member States after approval of the second, revised, Commission decisions on co-financing. 
Komisija je državam članicam izplačala sredstva šele po odobritvi druge, spremenjene odločbe Komisije o sofinanciranju.
These delays in Commission payments triggered delays in payments by Member States to final beneficiaries, as most Member States could only pay once they had received their share of the Fund. 
Te zamude pri plačilih Komisije so povzročile zamude pri plačilih držav članic končnim upravičencem, saj jih je večina držav članic lahko izvršila šele, ko so prejele svoj delež od Sklada.
As a result Member States encountered difficulties in respecting the time limits on ERF-funded projects. 
Zaradi tega so se države članice srečevale s težavami pri upoštevanju rokov pri projektih, financiranih iz ESB.
C 178/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2007 32. 
C 178/8 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 31.7.2007 32.
In general, projects started before the first payments from the Member States had been received. 
Projekti so se na splošno začeli pred prejetjem prvih plačil držav članic.
In those cases final beneficiaries had to pre-finance their expenditure: expenditure undertaken before the approval of the Member StateŐs request for co-financing was ineligible for funding under ERF I. This constraint favoured financially stronger organisations and discouraged smaller organisations from making further applications. 
V teh primerih so morali končni upravičenci predhodno financirati svoje odhodke: odhodki, prevzeti pred odobritvijo prošnje držav članic za sofinanciranje, niso bili upravičeni do financiranja v okviru ESB I. Ta omejitev je dajala prednost finančno močnejšim organizacijam, manjše organizacije pa je odvračala od nadaljnjih vlog.
Under ERF II there have been some modifications in these arrangements: Ń the deadlines in paragraph 27 above have all been extended, with a view to resolving the problem in ERF I, Ń sums disbursed after 1 January of the year in question may be eligible for support by the Fund regardless of when the request for co-financing is approved (cf paragraph 32 above), Ń besides a 50 % initial payment, there may be an interim payment of up to 50 %, compared with 30 % in ERF I. Different interpretation of ERF rules by Member States 34. 
V okviru ESB II je bilo nekaj sprememb pri teh predpisih: — vsi roki iz odstavka 27 so bili podaljšani, da bi se problem v ESB I razrešil, — vsote, izplačane po 1. januarju v zadevnem letu, so lahko upravičene do podpore iz Sklada, ne glede na to, kdaj je odobrena prošnja za sofinanciranje (glej odstavek 32), — poleg prvega predplačila v višini 50 % se lahko opravi tudi vmesno plačilo do največ 50 %, v primerjavi s 30 % pri ESB I. Različne razlage držav članic glede pravil ESB 34.
The audit revealed differences as regards the interpretation of the repatriation measure, which is indicatively described as providing Ôinformation and advice about voluntary return programmes and the situation in the country of originŐ. 
Pri reviziji so bile odkrite razlike pri razlagi ukrepa vračanja v izvorno državo, ki je indikativno opisan kot „informacije in svetovanje v zvezi s programi za prostovoljno vračanje ter razmerami v izvorni državi“.
It may also include Ôgeneral or vocational training and help with resettle-mentŐ (1). 
Vključuje lahko tudi „splošno ali poklicno usposabljanje in pomoč pri preselitvi“ (1).
The Council recognised that Ôpractical support is needed to create or improve conditions enabling refugees and displaced persons to take an informed decision to leave the territory of the Member State and return home, should they so wishŐ (2). 
Svet je ugotovil: „Praktična podpora je potrebna za ustvarjanje ali izboljševanje pogojev, ki beguncem in razseljenim osebam omogočajo sprejetje odločitve na podlagi prejetih informacij, da zapustijo ozemlje držav članic in se vrnejo v domovino, če si to želijo“ (2).
In some Member States the repatriation measure was to a large extent used to pay asylum seekersŐ return air fares. 
V nekaterih državah članicah se je ukrep vračanja v izvorno državo v veliki meri uporabljal za plačevanje letalskih vozovnic za povratek prosilcem za azil.