natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court has previously suggested that any definition of the term should draw on the principles set out in box 10.2, and has recommended articulating the concept of EU added value in order to provide guidance to the EU’s political authorities when choosing expenditure prior­ ities, and doing so in a suitable political declaration or in EU legislation (31). 
Sodišče je v preteklosti predlagalo, da bi morala vsaka opredelitev pojma temeljiti na načelih iz okvira 10.2, in priporočilo, naj se koncept dodane vrednosti EU ubesedi v ustrezni politični izjavi ali zakonodaji EU, da se političnim organom EU zago­ tovijo smernice, ki bi jih uporabljali pri izbiranju prednostnih nalog za odhodke (31).
T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S 10.30. The cases analysed by the Court have been revised and discussed with Member States. 
O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E 10.30 Primere, ki jih je preučilo Sodišče, smo pregledali in se o njih pogovorili z državami članicami.
Corrective actions — including the recovery of wrongly paid amounts — are being taken by Member States where necessary. 
Popravne ukrepe – vključno z izterjavo neupravičeno izplačanih sredstev – bodo po potrebi prevzele države članice.
10.31. The Commission underlines that the concept of EU added value may be used in many different contexts, such as in academic reflections on the EU budget, for defining goals and/or criteria for project selection in specific EU programmes, in provisions of the Financial Regulation and in evaluation of existing programmes but it also considers that the added value of a political project goes beyond simply referring to figures. 
10.31 Komisija poudarja, da je mogoče koncept dodane vrednosti EU uporabljati na številnih različnih področjih, na primer v akadem­ skih odzivih na evropski proračun, za opredelitev ciljev in/ali meril za izbiro projektov v posameznih programih EU, v določbah finančne uredbe in pri ocenjevanju obstoječih programov, vendar tudi meni, da dodana vrednost političnega projekta presega zgolj enostavno merljive podatke.
One of the purposes of the mentioned staff working paper was to explain the added value of having an EU budget and to present many examples of how this works in practice in the Member States, thus providing the EU’s decision-making bodies with the necessary guidance to prioritise expenditure. 
Eden ciljev omenjenega delovnega dokumenta je bil pojasniti dodano vrednost proračuna EU in ponazoriti z več primeri njegovo praktično uporabo v državah članicah, s čimer bi organom odločanja EU postavili potrebne smernice za prednostno razvrščanje odhodkov.
Moreover, the Commission Impact Assessment process prepares evidence for political decision-makers on the advantages and disadvantages of possible policy options by assessing their potential impact. 
Poleg tega so v postopku ocene učinka, ki ga izvaja Komisija, za oblikovalce politik pripravljeni dokazi o prednostih in slabostih more­ bitnih možnosti politike z oceno njihovega morebitnega učinka.
In so doing, the process also deals with the issue of the added value of Commission proposals. _____________ (29) Special Report No 12/2011 ‘Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities?’, paragraphs 51-58 and 76 (http://eca.europa.eu). 
Pri tem ocena obravnava tudi vprašanje dodane vrednosti predlogov Komisije. _____________ (29) Posebno poročilo št. 12/2011 – Ali so ukrepi EU prispevali k prilagoditvi zmogljivosti ribolovnih flot razpoložljivim ribolovnim možnostim?, odstavki 51–58 in 76 (http://eca.europa.eu).
(30) Commission Staff Working Paper, The added value of the EU budget, SEC(2011) 867 final section 1.1, accompanying the document A budget for Europe 2020 (COM(2011) 500 final). 
(30) Oddelek 1.1 delovnega dokumenta služb Komisije The added value of the EU budget (Dodana vrednost proračuna EU), SEC(2011) 867 final, ki je priložen dokumentu Proračun za strategijo Evropa 2020, COM(2011) 500 final.
(31) Opinion No 1/2010 ‘Improving the financial management of the European Union budget: Risks and challenges’, paragraph 18 (http://eca.europa.eu). 
(31) Mnenje št. 1/2010 – Izboljševanje finančnega poslovodenja prora­ čuna Evropske unije: tveganja in izzivi, odstavek 18 (http://eca.europa.eu).
Box 10.2 The Commission considers that the added value of a political project should be a key test to justify spending at the EU level. 
Okvir 10.2 Komisija meni, da bi morala biti dodana vrednost političnega projekta ključno merilo za utemeljitev porabe na ravni EU.
The Commission tested the added value of proposed expenditure in all policy areas when making its proposals for the EU budget for the period 2007-2013, using the following criteria: — Effectiveness: where EU action is the only way to get results. — Efficiency: where the EU offers better value for money. — Synergy: where EU actions are necessary to complement, stimulate, and leverage actions. 
Komisija je ob pripravi svojih predlogov za proračun EU za obdobje 2007–2013 preizkusila dodano vrednost predlaganih odhodkov na vseh področjih politik, in sicer po naslednjih merilih: — učinkovitost: kadar je ukrepanje EU edini način doseganja rezultatov, — uspešnost: kadar ukrepanje EU zagotavlja boljše rezultate za manj denarja, — sinergija: kadar je ukrepanje EU potrebno, da se dopolni, spodbudi in poveča vpliv dejavnosti.
The Commission designed both the new Multiannual Financial Framework and the sectoral instruments and programmes in a way that: — the delivery of objectives can better be achieved through spending at EU level, — the contribution of the expenditure at EU level is made obvious, — the EU added value is prominent, — pooling resources at EU level do generate economies of scale and better results. 
Komisija je večletni finančni okvir ter sektorske instrumente in programe oblikovala tako, da: — je mogoče cilje učinkoviteje doseči s porabo na ravni EU, — je prispevek porabe na ravni EU jasno izražen, — ima dodana vrednost EU osrednjo vlogo, — združevanje virov na ravni EU ustvarja ekonomije obsega in daje boljše rezultate.
10.32. TheCourthasstatedthatexpenditureprogrammes which do not add EU value are by definition unlikely to be an efficient and effective use of the EU taxpayer’s money (33). 
10.32 Sodišče je navedlo, da programi odhodkov, ki ne prinašajo dodane vrednosti EU, že po definiciji verjetno ne bodo predstavljali učinkovite in uspešne porabe denarja evrop­ skih davkoplačevalcev (33).
In its 2011 special reports, the Court found examples where the existence of EU added value was at best questionable: — the EU added value of the Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Guarantee (SMEG) facility had not been demon­ strated, as the results arising from the facility might also have been achieved by funding under national schemes (34), _____________ (32) Response by the European Court of Auditors to the Commission’s communication ‘Reforming the Budget, Changing Europe’, paragraph 8, April 2008. 
V svojih posebnih poročilih iz leta 2011 je navedlo primere, ko je bil obstoj dodane vrednosti EU v najboljšem primeru vprašljiv: — dodana vrednost EU garancijske sheme za mala in srednje velika podjetja (SMEG) ni bila dokazana, ker bi bilo rezul­ tate te sheme mogoče doseči tudi s financiranjem v okviru nacionalnih shem (34), _____________ (32) Odgovor Evropskega računskega sodišča na sporočilo Komisije z naslovom „Reformiranje proračuna, spreminjanje Evrope“, odstavek 8, april 2008. (33) Mnenje št.
(33) Opinion No 7/2011, paragraph 9. 
7/2011, odstavek 9. (34) Posebno poročilo št.
(34) Special Report No 4/2011 ‘The audit of the SME Guarantee The Commission Agenda for Change communication of October 2011 and its subsequent Council Conclusions of 14 May 2012 recommend a better targeting on countries that need help most and a focus on a limited number of sector where impact can be maximised and EU added value is clear. 10.32. 
4/2011 – Revizija garancijske sheme za MSP, Sporočilo Komisije o agendi za spremembe iz oktobra 2011 in na njem temelječi sklepi Sveta z dne 14. maja 2012 priporočajo boljše ciljno usmerjanje na države, ki najbolj potrebujejo pomoč, in osredo­ točanje na manjše število sektorjev, v katerih je mogoče doseči največje učinke in v katerih je dodana vrednost EU jasno izražena.
The Commission considers that the evaluation of the added value of the expenditure programmes has to be done in relation to the objectives set and in relation to the criteria used when testing initially the added value of the Commission proposals (see Box 10.2). — The Commission is already taking the observation into account in the discussions and planning for the next generation of financial instruments in the post-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework, where ‘ensuring EU added value’ is one of the key principles that must be respected by all proposed instruments. facility’, paragraph 104 (http://eca.europa.eu). 
10.32 Komisija meni, da je treba dodano vrednost programov odhodkov ocenjevati ob upoštevanju postavljenih ciljev in meril, ki so se uporabljala ob prvem preizkušanju dodane vrednosti predlogov Komisije (glej okvir 10.2). — Komisija opažanje že upošteva v razpravah glede naslednje gene­ racije finančnih instrumentov v večletnem finančnem okviru po letu 2013 in pri načrtovanju teh instrumentov, pri čemer je „zagotavljanje dodane vrednosti EU“ eno od ključnih načel, ki ga morajo spoštovati vsi predlagani instrumenti. odstavek 104 (http://eca.europa.eu).
EN 12.11.2012 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion C344/239 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S — for tourism projects co-financed by the ERDF, in the absence of a suitable system for setting objectives and monitoring performance against them, it was difficult to assess the extent of EU added value secured (35), and — in the case of the EU support provided for nuclear decom­ missioning in three Member States, the Court concluded that the policy framework was relatively loose and recom­ mended that the EU should base any decision about providing further financial assistance on an evaluation of the EU added value of such an intervention (36). 
SL 12.11.2012 UradnilistEvropskeunije C344/239 U G O T OV I T V E S O D I Š Č A — pri turističnih projektih, sofinanciranih iz ESRR, je bilo brez ustreznega sistema za določanje ciljev ter kasnejšega spremljanja in vrednotenja uspešnosti težko oceniti obseg zagotovljene dodane vrednosti EU (35) in — pri podpori EU za razgradnjo jedrskih elektrarn v treh državah članicah je Sodišče ugotovilo, da je bil okvir poli­ tike dokaj ohlapen, in priporočilo, naj vsakršna odločitev EU o zagotavljanju dodatne finančne pomoči temelji na predhodni oceni evropske dodane vrednosti takšnega posredovanja (36).
10.33. Recent Court opinions have referred to the Commission weaknesses in defining policy objectives in terms of results — what the EU funding is designed to achieve (37). 
10.33 Sodišče je v nedavnih mnenjih omenilo slabosti Komisije pri opredeljevanju ciljev politik z vidika rezultatov, torej tega, kar naj bi se doseglo s financiranjem EU (37).
Without clear targets for expected results, it will continue to be difficult for the Commission to demonstrate that its expenditure achieves EU added value — and thus difficult to provide assurance that its spending is efficient and effective. 
Brez jasnih ožjih ciljev glede pričakovanih rezultatov bo Komisija še naprej težko dokazovala, da s svojimi odhodki ustvarja dodano vrednost EU in posledično tudi težko podala zagotovilo o učinkovitosti in uspešnosti porabe.
Compared with the previous year, there were welcome signs of improvement (paragraph 10.7). 
V primerjavi s prejšnjim letom je mogoče videti dobrodošle izboljšave (odstavek 10.7).
10.35. Relevanceremainsanissue,inparticularconcerning the internal coherence of the objectives and indicators, the setting of meaningful quantified targets and the annual measurement of progress. 
10.35 Problematično ostaja vprašanje relevantnosti, zlasti kar zadeva notranjo skladnost ciljev in kazalnikov, določanje smiselnih količinsko opredeljenih ožjih ciljev in letno merjenje napredka.
As was the case last year, the three DGs assessed by the Court did not report on economy and efficiency in part 1 of the annual activity reports (see paragraphs 10.8 to 10.12). _____________ (35) Special Report No 6/2011 ‘Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?’, paragraph 46 (http://eca.europa.eu). 
Kot leto prej trije generalni direktorati, ki jih je pregledalo Sodišče, v delu 1 letnih poročil o dejavnostih tudi v letu 2011 niso poročali o gospodarnosti in učinkovitosti (glej odstavke 10.8 do 10.12). _____________ (35) Posebno poročilo št. 6/2011 – Ali so bili turistični projekti, sofi­ nancirani iz ESRR, uspešni?, odstavek 46 (http://eca.europa.eu).
(36) Special Report No 16/2011, paragraph 42(b). 
(36) Posebno poročilo št. 16/2011, odstavek 42(b).
(37) Opinion No 7/2011, paragraph 10, and Opinion No 1/2012, T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S — The Commission notes that the Court’s performance audit found high employment effects for the examined tourism projects. — The Commission considers that the EU added value of the programmes was clear: without them, reaching the overall goal of significantly improving EU nuclear safety, as well as helping Member States mitigate the effects of early closure, would have been extremely difficult. 
(37) Mnenje št. 7/2011, odstavek 10, in Mnenje št. 1/2012, odstavka 8 O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E — Komisija ugotavlja, da je iz revizije smotrnosti poslovanja, ki jo je izvedlo Računsko sodišče, razviden velik vpliv pregledanih turisti­ čnih projektov na zaposlovanje. — Komisija meni, da je bila dodana vrednost EU pri teh programih jasna: brez njih bi namreč izredno težko dosegli splošni cilj močno izboljšane jedrske varnosti EU, izjemno težko pa bi tudi pomagali državam članicam ublažiti posledice predčasnega zapi­ ranja.
On 24 November 2011 the Commission proposed a Council regulation on Union support for the nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia (COM(2011) 783) for the period 2014-2020. 
Komisija je 24. novembra 2011 predlagala uredbo Sveta o podpori Unije za programe pomoči pri razgradnji jedrskih elek­ trarn v Bolgariji, Litvi in na Slovaškem (COM(2011) 783) za obdobje 2014–2020.
This was accompanied by a comprehensive impact assessment that includes an evaluation of the EU added value. 
Predlogu je bila priložena obsežna ocena učinka, ki vključuje oceno dodane vrednosti EU.
An increased focus on performance and results is one of the main goals of the Commission in its proposals ‘A budget for EU2020’ for the delivery of the long-term strategic objectives of the Union with the budget available for the next seven years. 
10.33 Večja osredotočenost na smotrnost poslovanja in rezultate je eden glavnih ciljev predlogov Komisije „Proračun za strategijo Evropa 2020“ za uresničitev dolgoročnih strateških ciljev Unije z razpoložljivim proračunom za naslednjih sedem let.
In this line, all programmes and instruments included in the Multi­ annual Financial Framework proposal have been designed to ensure that their outputs and impacts substantially contribute to the achievement of the key policy objectives of the EU, thus emphasising expected results and performance. 
V tem pogledu so vsi programi in instrumenti, vključeni v predlog večletnega finančnega okvira, oblikovani tako, da njihovi izložki in učinki bistveno prispevajo k doseganju ključnih ciljev politike EU, s čimer dajejo večjo težo pričakovanim rezultatom ter smotrnosti poslo­ vanja.
10.34. The Commission strives to continuously improve the quality and clarity of its accountability reports. 
10.34 Komisija si prizadeva stalno izboljševati kakovost in jasnost svojih poročil o odgovornosti.
The Commission strengthened the standing instructions for the 2011 AARs, in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, and requested the directorates-general to add indicators on voluntary basis on sound financial management in Part 3. 
10.35 Komisija je poostrila stalna navodila za letna poročila o dejavnostih za leto 2011 v smislu učinkovitosti in uspešnosti ter generalne direktorate pozvala, naj prostovoljno dodajo kazalnike o dobrem finančnem poslovodenju v delu 3.
A number of DGs did report on this in 2011. paragraphs 8 and 151. 
V svojih poročilih je v letu 2011 to upoštevalo več generalnih direktoratov. in 151.
EN C 344/240 Official Journal T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S 10.36. Objectives, indicators and targets set in the management plans of DG AGRI and DG REGIO were generally those used for reporting in the annual activity reports, and were generally consistent with last year. 
SL C 344/240 Uradni list Evropske unije U G OT OV I T V E S O D I Š Č A 10.36 Cilji, kazalniki in ožji cilji, določeni v načrtih upra­ vljanja GD AGRI in GD REGIO, so bili na splošno uporabljeni za poročanje v letnih poročilih o dejavnostih in so bili skladni s tistimi iz prejšnjega leta.
However, where changes were made, explanations were not always provided (see paragraphs 10.13 to 10.16). 10.37. 
Kjer pa so bile uvedene spremembe, te niso bile vedno pojasnjene (glej odstavke 10.13 do 10.16).
Legallimitationsandpracticalconstraintsimpaired the reliability of the information collected by the DGs from Member States regarding programmes under shared management. 
10.37 Zaradi pravnih ovir in praktičnih omejitev je bila ogrožena zanesljivost informacij o programih v okviru skup­ nega upravljanja, ki so jih generalni direktorati pridobili od držav članic.
Some steps are being taken to provide Member States with incentives to supply relevant, comparable and reliable performance data for the CSF funds in the next programming period, and it may be that valuable lessons can be drawn from this in the future. 
Uvajajo se nekateri ukrepi za spodbujanje držav članic k posredovanju ustreznih, primerljivih in zanesljivih podatkov o smotrnosti poslovanja za sklade skupnega strate­ škega okvira v naslednjem programskem obdobju, in morda bi se lahko iz tega v prihodnje kaj koristnega naučili.
There is an additional problem of timing (see paragraphs 10.17 to 10.18). 
Dodaten problem je tudi časovna razporejenost (glej odstavka 10.17 in 10.18).
Inits2011specialreports,intermsofthethree specific areas analysed, the Court found that: (a) good quality needs assessments are often not present although they are key to ensuring that EU expenditure is targeted on the areas (geographical or by topic) most in need (paragraphs 10.22 to 10.24); (b) there are weaknesses in the design of programmes which affect negatively the Commission’s ability to establish and report on the results and impacts of EU spending (para­ graphs 10.25 to 10.30); (c) it is a challenge for the Commission to demonstrate the EU added value of EU spending (paragraphs 10.31 to 10.33). of the European Union 12.11.2012 T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S 10.36. 
10.38 Sodišče je v zvezi s tremi specifičnimi analiziranimi področji v posebnih poročilih za leto 2011 ugotovilo: (a) da pogosto ni kakovostnih analiz potreb, čeprav je to ključno za zagotavljanje, da se odhodki EU usmerjajo na področja (geografska ali tematska), na katerih so sredstva EU najbolj potrebna (odstavki 10.22 do 10.24); (b) da so v zasnovi programov slabosti, zaradi katerih Komisija ne more ugotavljati rezultatov in učinkov porabe EU in poročati o njih (odstavki 10.25 do 10.30); (c) da se Komisija sooča z izzivom pri dokazovanju dodane vrednosti EU pri porabi EU (odstavki 10.31 do 10.33). 12.11.2012 O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E Komisija se strinja, da je treba pojasniti spremembe v primerjavi z letnim poročilom o dejavnostih prejšnjega leta.
It is however of the view that sufficient information has been provided in this respect. 
Vendar meni, da je glede tega na voljo že dovolj informacij.
10.37. The Commission’s quality checking of the data supplied by the Member States for the current programming period will be continued and intensified. 
10.37 Komisija bo še naprej preverjala kakovost podatkov, ki jih pošiljajo države članice za trenutno programsko obdobje, preverjanja pa bo še poostrila.
Given the seven-year programming period, data available 16 months after the end of the year is still of use to adjust programmes for which the data suggests a lack of performance (see reply to paragraph 10.18). 
Glede na sedemletno programsko obdobje so podatki, ki so na voljo 16 mesecev po izteku leta, še vedno koristni za prilagajanje progra­ mov, za katere je iz podatkov razvidno nesmotrno poslovanje (glej odgovor na odstavek 10.18).
10.38. (a) (b) (c) The Commission agrees that a sound needs analysis forms an important part of the programme cycle and is analysing carefully the cases in which the Court found that a needs analysis had not been carried out sufficiently. The Commission acknowledges the importance of project design but does not agree with all assessments made by the Court with regard to the cases mentioned in paragraphs 10.25 to 10.30. 
10.38 (a) Komisija se strinja, da je tehtna analiza potreb pomemben del programskega cikla, in natančno preučuje primere, za katere analiza potreb po mnenju Sodišča ni bila zadovoljivo opravljena. (b) Komisija priznava pomen zasnove projektov, vendar ne soglaša z vsemi ocenami, ki jih je v povezavi s primeri iz odstavkov 10.25–10.30 podalo Sodišče.
However, the Commission analyses carefully the Court’s assessments in this regard and adapts its practice whenever appropriate to achieve further improvements in project design. 
Komisija kljub temu temeljito preučuje ocene Sodišča v tem pogledu in po potrebi prilagaja svoje delovne postopke, da bi se zasnova projektov še dodatno izboljšala. (c) Pri oblikovanju naslednjega večletnega finančnega okvira je Komi­ sija uporabila načela, opisana v pregledu proračuna iz leta 2010, in se posebej osredotočila na dodano vrednost proračuna EU.
EN 12.11.2012 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion C344/241 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S Recommendations 10.39. Following the review and the findings and conclusions for 2011, the Court recommends that: — Recommendation 1: The Commission should, in the design of new spending programmes, seek to focus its activities on the results and impacts it wants to achieve. 
SL 12.11.2012 UradnilistEvropskeunije C344/241 U G O T OV I T V E S O D I Š Č A Priporočila 10.39 Sodišče na podlagi pregleda ter ugotovitev in zaključkov za leto 2011 priporoča, naj: — priporočilo št. 1: si Komisija pri zasnovi novih programov porabe prizadeva, da bodo njene dejavnosti osredotočene na rezultate in učinke, ki jih želi doseči.
If results and impacts cannot be readily measured, the Commission should put in place indicators and milestones, based on ‘SMART’ (38) objectives that would demonstrate that its activities support its desired goals. — Recommendation 2: The Commission should work with Member States with a view to improving the quality and timeliness of the data submitted. 
Če rezultatov in učinkov ni mogoče zlahka meriti, naj uvede kazalnike in mejnike na podlagi ciljev „SMART“ (38), s katerimi bi poka­ zala, da njene dejavnosti prispevajo k doseganju želenih ciljev, — priporočilo št. 2: si Komisija v sodelovanju z državami članicami prizadeva, da bodo pridobljeni podatki kakovost­ nejši in pravočasno predloženi.
T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S _____________ (38) Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed. 
O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E _____________ (38) Specifični, merljivi, dosegljivi, ustrezni in časovno opredeljeni cilji.
See the Court of Auditors’ Annual Report concerning the financial year 2010, paragraph 8.33. 
Glej letno poročilo Sodišča za proračunsko leto 2010, odstavek 8.33.
The Commission agrees with the Court’s recommendation and — as outlined — has already taken action in this regard. 
10.39 Komisija se strinja s priporočilom Sodišča in je, kot je opisano, že sprejela primerne ukrepe.