natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
61 Former MEPs, who are engaged in lobbying and representational activities linked to the EU, are required under Article 6 of the code of conduct to inform the Parliament about such activities and are restricted from benefiting from the facilities granted to former MEPs (e.g. the lifelong access pass). 
61 Nekdanji poslanci Evropskega parlamenta, ki se ukvarjajo z dejavnostmi lobiranja in zastopanja, povezanimi z EU, morajo v skladu s členom 6 kodeksa ravnanja o teh dejavnostih obvestiti Parlament, poleg tega pa izgubijo ugodnosti, ki jih imajo nekdanji poslanci Evropskega parlamenta (npr. vseživljenjska dovolilnica za vstop).
There are no further restrictions on MEPs’ post mandate activities, and no obligation for former Members to report any other activities to the Parliament. 
V zvezi z dejavnostmi poslancev Evropskega parlamenta po izteku mandata ni nobenih dodatnih omejitev, nekdanjim poslancem pa tudi ni treba poročati Parlamentu o morebitnih drugih dejavnostih.
62 The nature of the office and duties of MEPs are different from those of the President of the Council and of the Commissioners firstly because MEPs are elected directly by the citizens. 
62 Narava funkcije in dolžnosti poslancev Evropskega parlamenta se razlikujejo od narave funkcije in dolžnosti predsednika Sveta in komisarjev najprej zato, ker poslance Evropskega parlamenta neposredno izvolijo državljani.
There is, however, scope for perceived CoI to occur, as MEPs work on legislation that could directly affect industries in which their background lies. 
Kljub temu pa obstaja možnost, da bi se dojemalo, da je pri njih prišlo do nasprotja interesov, saj poslanci obravnavajo zakonodajo, ki bi lahko neposredno vplivala na panoge, s katerimi so bili povezani v preteklosti.
63 The code of conduct prohibits the President of the Council from lobbying staff or Members of the EU institutions in the 18 months following the end of his or her term of office. 
63 Glede na kodeks ravnanja predsednik Sveta v obdobju 18 mesecev po prenehanju funkcije ne sme lobirati pri uslužbencih ali članih ali poslancih institucij EU.
During the same period, he or she must also notify the Secretary-General of the Council at least four weeks in advance about his or her intention to perform any professional activity. 
Poleg tega mora v istem obdobju najmanj štiri tedne vnaprej obvestiti generalnega sekretarja Sveta, če namerava opravljati kakršno koli poklicno dejavnost.
There are areas for harmonisation and examples of good practice in the ethical frameworks of the audited institutions 64 The audited institutions have different ethical frameworks. 
V etičnih okvirih revidiranih institucij obstajajo področja, ki bi jih bilo mogoče uskladiti, in primeri dobre prakse 64 Revidirane institucije imajo različne etične okvire.
This is because their work is not the same, but also because the risks inherent in performing their duties are different in many areas. 
Njihovo delo namreč ni enako, pa tudi tveganja, povezana z opravljanjem njihovih dolžnosti, se na številnih področjih razlikujejo.
However, there are many areas where there are good reasons to have harmonised approaches to handling ethical issues among institutions. 
Vendar pa na številnih področjih obstajajo dobri razlogi za uskladitev pristopov k obravnavanju etičnih zadev med institucijami.
For example, the public perception of EU institutions is similar, the staff of the institutions have the same legal status, and inter-institutional movement of staff is possible. 
Javno dojemanje institucij EU je na primer podobno, uslužbenci institucij imajo enak pravni status in možne so medinstitucionalne premestitve uslužbencev.
Gifts and entertainment policies 65 Even though the main characteristics of the gifts and entertainment policies are similar among the audited institutions, we found some differences which were not justified either by the nature of their activities or by the risks involved (see Box 4). 
Politike glede daril in pogostitve 65 Čeprav so glavne značilnosti politik glede daril in pogostitve med revidiranimi institucijami podobne, je Sodišče odkrilo nekaj razlik, ki niso bile upravičene niti z naravo njihovih dejavnosti niti z zadevnimi tveganji (glej okvir 4). 24
24 Box 4 Example of heterogeneous rules governing gifts and entertainment Definition of gifts and hospitality Article 11 of the Staff Regulations does not define what is meant by “gifts” or “hospitality”. 
25 Okvir 4 Primer različnih pravil glede daril in pogostitve Opredelitev daril in gostoljubnosti V členu 11 kadrovskih predpisov ni opredeljeno, kaj je mišljeno z „darili” ali „gostoljubnostjo”.
The Commission and the Council define the gifts and hospitality in their implementing provisions for the staff as follows: “a sum of money or any physical object, or the possibility to participate for free in events which are open to the public or are private in nature, are only accessible in return for payment and represent a certain value (such as complimentary tickets for sports events, concerts, theatre, conferences, etc.), or any other advantage with a pecuniary value such as transport costs”. 
Komisija in Svet v svojih izvedbenih določbah za uslužbence opredeljujeta darila in gostoljubnost kot denarni znesek ali fizični predmet ali možnost brezplačne udeležbe na prireditvah, ki so odprti za javnost ali so zasebne narave, dostopni le v zameno za plačilo in predstavljajo določeno vrednost (kot so brezplačne vstopnice za športne prireditve, koncerte, gledališče, konference itd.), ali katero koli drugo ugodnost s finančno vrednostjo, kot so stroški prevoza.
The Parliament defines gifts in the implementing provision applicable to MEPs as “any distinct material object(s) consisting of one or more parts given to a Member at one occasion by one donor”. 
Parlament v izvedbenih določbah, ki se uporabljajo za poslance, opredeljuje darila kot „različne materialne predmete, ki vsebujejo enega ali več delov in jih poslancu ob posameznih priložnostih podarijo posamezni darovalci”.
Values of acceptable gifts At the Commission and the Council, staff may accept gifts with a value of less than €50 without first obtaining permission first. 
Vrednost sprejemljivih daril Uslužbenci Komisije in Sveta lahko sprejmejo darila v vrednosti do 50 EUR brez predhodnega dovoljenja.
Gifts worth more than €150 cannot be accepted under any circumstances. 
Daril v vrednosti nad 150 EUR ne smejo sprejeti v nobenem primeru.
Outside activity policies for staff 66 Subject to authorisation, EU staff are allowed to perform activities in their private lives outside of work. 
Politike glede zunanjih dejavnosti za uslužbence 66 Uslužbenci EU lahko z odobritvijo opravljajo dejavnosti v zasebnem življenju izven zaposlitve.
In some cases, they can accept payment for doing so. 
V nekaterih primerih za to lahko prejmejo plačilo.
But the amount they can legally receive varies between institutions (see Annex I — Part B). 
Znesek, ki ga lahko zakonito prejmejo, se med institucijami razlikuje (glej Del B Priloge I).
The Parliament staff may not accept any payment other than reimbursement of costs incurred directly or indirectly in performing the outside activity. 
Uslužbenci Parlamenta ne smejo sprejeti nobenega plačila razen povračila stroškov, ki so nastali neposredno ali posredno pri opravljanju zunanje dejavnosti.
At the Council, staff members may not receive more than €5 000 for outside activities in a given year. 
Uslužbenci Sveta za zunanje dejavnosti ne smejo prejeti več kot 5 000 EUR v danem letu.
At the Commission, there is an annual ceiling for net remuneration of staff (€10 000). 
Komisija je določila letno zgornjo mejo za neto prejemke uslužbencev (10 000 EUR).
Exceeding this ceiling makes the outside activity prohibited. 
Če se ta zgornja meja preseže, je zunanja dejavnost prepovedana.
Members’ declarations on the interests and activities of the family members 67 The code of conduct for MEPs requires them to submit a declaration of their personal financial interests and activities. 
Izjave članov ali poslancev o interesih in dejavnostih družinskih članov 67 Na podlagi kodeksa ravnanja za poslance Evropskega parlamenta morajo ti predložiti izjavo o svojih osebnih finančnih interesih in dejavnostih.
The financial interests of their family members have to be included in declarations only in cases where MEPs consider that such interests might influence the performance of their duties, and that they cannot resolve the conflict of interests in any other way. 
Finančne interese svojih družinskih članov morajo v izjave vključiti le, če menijo, da ti interesi lahko vplivajo na opravljanje njihovih dolžnosti ter da tega nasprotja interesov ne morejo rešiti drugače.
The same applies to declarations about the professional activity of MEPs’ family members. 
Enako velja za izjave o poklicnih dejavnostih družinskih članov poslancev.
68 In contrast, the Members of the Commission15 and the President of the European Council are obliged to declare the financial interests, and the professional activity of their spouses and partners. 
68 Za razliko od tega pa člani Komisije15 in predsednik Evropskega sveta morajo prijaviti svoje finančne interese ter poklicne dejavnosti svojih zakoncev in partnerjev.
Specific and practical guidance available in the Commission 69 While examining the ethical frameworks, we came across a number of instances where one institution had better developed and clearer rules or guidance on certain aspects of ethical requirements. 
Specifične in praktične smernice, ki so na voljo na Komisiji 69 Sodišče je pri preučevanju etičnih okvirov naletelo na številne primere, v katerih je imela ena institucija bolje razvita in jasnejša pravila ali smernice o nekaterih vidikih etičnih zahtev.
70 The Commission, as the largest institution, encounters the most variety in ethical situations. 
70 Komisija se kot največja institucija srečuje z najbolj raznolikimi etičnimi situacijami.
In many cases, it has developed more specific and clearer guidance, especially for staff. 
V številnih primerih je razvila bolj specifične in jasnejše smernice, zlasti za uslužbence.
Some DGs have developed specific codes of conduct and additional procedures which serve to better address situations and risks which recur frequently across the Commission. 
Nekateri generalni direktorati so razvili specifične kodekse ravnanja in dodatne postopke za boljše obravnavanje tovrstnih situacij in tveganj, ki se na Komisiji pogosto ponavljajo.
71 Of the DGs we examined, DG COMP has the most detailed guidance and additional procedures. 
71 Od generalnih direktoratov, ki jih je Sodišče preučilo, je imel GD COMP najbolj podrobne smernice in dodatne postopke.
In particular, the code of conduct of this DG introduces the concept of generally applicable “case-specific declarations”, and “specific inspection declarations” for antitrust and merger inspections. 
Pri tem je treba omeniti zlasti to, da sta bila v kodeksu ravnanja tega direktorata uvedena koncepta splošno veljavnih „izjav za posamezne primere” in „izjav za specifične inšpekcijske preglede” v zvezi z inšpekcijskimi pregledi na področju protimonopolne politike in združitev.
DG AGRI’s ethics guide also includes guidance, examples and explanations in respect of the ethical requirements, although we have pointed to some limitations in Box 2. 
Etični vodnik GD AGRI vključuje tudi smernice, primere in pojasnila v zvezi z etičnimi zahtevami, čeprav je Sodišče v okviru 2 opozorilo na nekatere omejitve.
72 In addition to the specific guidance issued by DGs, the Commission has developed extensive explanations and real-life examples which are available for consultation on its internal website. 
72 Komisija je poleg specifičnih smernic, ki jih izdajajo generalni direktorati, pripravila tudi obsežna pojasnila in resnične primere, ki so na voljo na njenem internem spletišču.
These examples cover topics such as outside activities, spouse’s employment, and gifts and hospitality. 
Ti primeri zajemajo teme, kot so zunanje dejavnosti, zaposlitev zakonca ter darila in gostoljubnost.
Ethical Committee for Members in the Commission 73 The Parliament and the Commission have both established committees which can advise the Presidents of the two institutions on the application of the code of conduct for Members. 
Odbor za etiko za člane Komisije 73 Tako Parlament kot tudi Komisija sta ustanovila odbora, ki lahko svetujeta predsednikoma obeh institucij o uporabi kodeksa ravnanja za člane.
At the Parliament, this committee is called the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members. At the Commission, it is called the Independent Ethical Committee. 
Na Parlamentu se ta odbor imenuje posvetovalni odbor o ravnanju poslancev, na Komisiji pa odbor za etiko.
74 The Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members is composed of five MEPs co-opted from the Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs and its Committee on Legal Affairs. 
74 Posvetovalni odbor o ravnanju poslancev je sestavljen iz petih poslancev Evropskega parlamenta, kooptiranih iz odborov Parlamenta za ustavne zadeve in za pravne zadeve.
The Commission’s Independent Ethical Committee is made up of three persons selected for their competence, experience, independence and professional qualities. 
Neodvisni odbor Komisije za etiko je sestavljen iz treh oseb, izbranih na podlagi njihove usposobljenosti, izkušenj, neodvisnosti in strokovnosti.
The composition of such committees may have an impact on the perceived objectivity and independence. 
Sestava teh odborov lahko vpliva na dojemanje objektivnosti in neodvisnosti.
Specific anti-harassment policies for cases involving Members of the Parliament 75 The Parliament has set out a separate policy for cases involving harassment complaints against MEPs. 
Specifične politike proti nadlegovanju za primere, ki vključujejo poslance Parlamenta 75 Parlament je oblikoval posebno politiko za primere pritožb zoper poslance zaradi nadlegovanja.
It provides a clear procedure and safeguards for any potential complainant in such sensitive cases16. 
V njej so določeni jasni postopki in zaščitni ukrepi za vsakega potencialnega pritožnika v takih občutljivih primerih16.
Clear wording of the anti-harassment policies for staff 76 As described in Annex I — Part E, all the audited institutions had good anti-harassment policies in place. 
Jasna ubeseditev politik proti nadlegovanju za uslužbence 76 Kot je opisano v Delu E Priloge I, so vse revidirane institucije vzpostavile dobre politike proti nadlegovanju.
In Box 5 we highlight implementing provisions of anti-harassment policies which were especially clear and broad in scope. 
V okviru 5 so navedene izvedbene določbe politik proti nadlegovanju, ki so še posebej jasne in imajo še posebej široko področje uporabe.
As explained in paragraph 16, the main focus of this audit 27 Box 5 Examples of clear wording in anti-harassment policies The Parliament’s anti-harassment policy provides practical illustrative examples of harassment. 
28 Okvir 5 Primeri jasne ubeseditve politik proti nadlegovanju Politika Parlamenta proti nadlegovanju zagotavlja praktične ponazoritvene primere nadlegovanja.
The Council’s anti-harassment policy mentions modern means of harassment, such as internet and email. 
V politiki Sveta proti nadlegovanju so omenjena sodobna sredstva nadlegovanja, kot sta splet in e-pošta.
The Commission’s anti-harassment policy explicitly states that requests for assistance are dealt with as soon as possible. 
V politiki Komisije proti nadlegovanju je izrecno navedeno, da se zahtevki za pomoč obravnavajo v najkrajšem možnem času.
The Commission’s policy includes a clear reference to the Staff Regulations in setting out possible sanctions. 
Politika Komisije se pri določanju mogočih sankcij jasno sklicuje na kadrovske predpise.
The ways in which the Parliament, the Council and the Commission implemented their ethical frameworks, falls outside the scope of our work. 
Načini, na katere Parlament, Svet in Komisija izvajajo svoje etične okvire, ne spadajo v obseg dela Sodišča.
Nevertheless, we carried out a survey on a representative sample of staff in the three institutions to assess their awareness and perception as regards the ethical frameworks (see paragraph 23 and Annex II). 
Kljub temu pa je Sodišče izvedlo anketo na reprezentativnem vzorcu uslužbencev vseh treh institucij, da bi ocenilo njihovo poznavanje in dojemanje etičnih okvirih (glej odstavek 23 in Prilogo II).
While the results of the survey are not direct audit evidence, they give an indication of how staff members view their own, and their colleagues’ attitudes and competence, and of how their institution’s ethical framework operates in practice. 
Rezultati ankete sicer niso neposredni revizijski dokazi, vendar kažejo, kaj uslužbenci menijo o svojem odnosu in usposobljenosti ter o odnosu in usposobljenosti svojih kolegov ter kako etični okvir njihove institucije deluje v praksi.
We analyse these results in the following paragraphs. 
Rezultate ankete Sodišče analizira v naslednjih odstavkih.
78 The picture suggested by the survey results is a mixed one. 
78 Rezultati ankete kažejo mešano sliko.
We found that nearly all staff contacted believe that they would recognise unethical conduct if they witnessed it (see Figure 2), demonstrating that they assessed their own “ethical instinct” highly. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da skoraj vsi uslužbenci, ki so sodelovali v anketi, menijo, da bi prepoznali neetično ravnanje, če bi mu bili priča (glej sliko 2), kar kaže na to, da svoj „etični instinkt” visoko ocenjujejo.
However, only 23.4 % of staff believe that their colleagues would not hesitate to report unethical behaviour to their hierarchical superiors (see replies to questions 11.1 and 11.3 of the survey, Annex II). 
Samo 23,4 % uslužbencev pa meni, da njihovi kolegi ne bi imeli pomislekov glede prijave neetičnega vedenja svojim nadrejenim (glej odgovore na vprašanji 11.1 in 11.3 ankete, Priloga II).
Figure 2 – Most staff recognise unethical behaviour I recognise unethical behaviour when I see it 28 Managers Administrators APAs Other Commission Council Parliament -20 % 80 % Overall results Overall results Results by position Managers Administrators APAs Other Results by institution Commission Council Parliament 20 % I do not know Results by position Results by institution 0 % I strongly disagree I disagree 100 % 0 % 20 % 40 % I agree 60 % I strongly agree Source: ECA, extrapolated results of the survey of staff of three EU institutions: answers to question 11.1 (see Annex II — Results of the survey). 79 About half of the staff claim to have at least good knowledge of their institution’s ethical framework (see Figure 3). 
Slika 2 – Večina uslužbencev prepozna neetično vedenje Neetično obnašanje prepoznam, ko ga vidim. 29 Skupni rezultati Skupni rezultati Rezultati po delovnih mestih Vodstveni delavci Upravni uslužbenci Akreditirani parlamentarni pomočniki Drugi Rezultati po institucijah Komisija Svet Parlament 20 % Ne vem. Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče, ekstrapolirani rezultati ankete med uslužbenci treh institucij EU: odgovori na vprašanje 11.1 (glej Prilogo II — Rezultati ankete) 79 Približno polovica uslužbencev trdi, da vsaj dobro poznajo etični okvir svoje institucije (glej sliko 3).
This points to a potential deficit in communication: the standards, rules, procedures and practices constituting the institution’s ethical framework need to be consciously conveyed. 
To kaže na potencialno pomanjkanje komuniciranja: standarde, pravila, postopke in prakse, ki tvorijo etični okvir institucije, je treba zavestno sporočati.
In this context, it is interesting to note the differences between the various types of posts (with managers, followed by administrators, claiming the best knowledge) and the institutions (with the Commission staff being most confident, ahead of staff working at the Council and the Parliament). 
V zvezi s tem je zanimivo, da obstajajo razlike med različnimi vrstami delovnih mest (z vodstvenimi delavci in takoj za njimi upravnimi uslužbenci, ki trdijo, da je njihovo znanje o tem najboljše) in institucijami (z uslužbenci Komisije, ki so najbolj prepričani v svoje poznavanje etičnega okvira, sledijo pa jim uslužbenci Sveta in Parlamenta).
80 The survey sheds some light on the possible reasons for the rather low level of awareness of the ethical framework. 
80 Anketa nekoliko razkriva možne razloge za dokaj nizko stopnjo poznavanja etičnega okvira.
Firstly, less than half of staff members claim to have had any training on ethics at all in the context of their work for EU institutions (see Figure 4). 
Prvič, manj kot polovica uslužbencev trdi, da so imeli usposabljanje o etiki v okviru svojega dela v instituciji EU (glej sliko 4).
The proportion of staff receiving regular training on ethics is only around 3 %. 
Delež uslužbencev, ki se redno udeležuje usposabljanj o etiki, je samo približno 3 %.
Figure 4 – Less than half of staff members have received training on ethics 30 Managers Administrators APAs Parliament Overall results Results by institution I attend regular training courses in ethics I attended a one-off training in ethics I have not attended any ethics training Other Commission Council Results by position -100 % -80 % -60 % -40 % -20 % 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % Source: ECA, extrapolated results of the survey of staff of three EU institutions: answers to question 4 (see Annex II — Results of the survey). 
Nisem se udeležil nobenega usposabljanja o etiki. Akreditirani parlamentarni pomočniki Vodstveni delavci Upravni uslužbenci Parlament -100 % -80 % -60 % -40 % -20 % Rezultati po institucijah 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % Drugi Komisija Svet Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče, ekstrapolirani rezultati ankete med uslužbenci treh institucij EU: odgovori na vprašanje 4 (glej Prilogo II — Rezultati ankete) 81 Drugič, približno 70 % uslužbencev trdi, da etične smernice, ki jih njihova institucija zagotavlja, niso specifične in ne temeljijo na resničnih primerih (glej sliko 5).
Interestingly, the differences between the three institutions (with the rate of negative answers ranging from 68.4 % for the Commission to 76.1 % for the Parliament) are much less significant than the differences between types of posts (with the rate of negative answers ranging from 41.4 % for managers to around 70 % for non-managerial staff). 
Zanimivo je, da so razlike med temi tremi institucijami (s stopnjo negativnih odgovorov med 68,4 % za Komisijo in 76,1 % za Parlament) veliko manjše kot razlike med vrstami delovnih mest (s stopnjo negativnih odgovorov med 41,4 % za vodstvene delavce in približno 70 % za nevodstvene uslužbence).
This suggests that the problem is perhaps not only, or even not mainly, with the quality of the guidance itself, but also with its dissemination. 
To nakazuje, da problem morda ni le (ali celo ni predvsem) kakovost smernic samih, ampak tudi njihovo razširjanje.
Figure 5 – Less than a third of staff members stated that the ethics guidance received from their institution was specific and based on real-life examples 31 Administrators APAs Other Commission Council Parliament -80 % Overall results Results by position Results by institution 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % My institution provides me with specific ethical guidance based on real-life examples My institution does not provide me with specific ethical guidance based on real-life examples Managers -60 % -40 % -20 % Source: ECA, extrapolated results of the survey of staff of three EU institutions: answers to question 9 (see Annex II — Results of the survey). 
Slika 5 – Manj kot tretjina uslužbencev je navedla, da so bile etične smernice, ki so jih prejeli od svoje institucije, specifične in da so temeljile na resničnih primerih 31 Vodstveni delavci Skupni rezultati Rezultati po delovnih mestih Rezultati po institucijah 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % Moja institucija mi zagotavlja specifične etične smernice, ki temeljijo na resničnih primerih.
Staff members who receive more training, or more specific, real-life-based guidance on ethics, are more likely to feel confident about their ethical competences. 
Uslužbenci, ki se udeležijo več ali bolj specifičnih usposabljanj ter prejmejo smernice o etiki, ki temeljijo na resničnih primerih, bodo bolj verjetno zaupali v svojo etično usposobljenost.