natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Major interpretation differences existed in the Member States over who could apply for repatriation assistance. 
Med državami članicami so bile velike razlike pri razlagi v zvezi s tem, kdo lahko zaprosi za pomoč za vrnitev v izvorno državo.
The funding of failed asylum seeke rs was co-financed by the Fund, even when the decision to return home was not a voluntary one (3). 
Financiranje neuspešnih prosilcev za azil je sofinanciral Sklad, celo kadar odločitev o vrnitvi domov ni bila prostovoljna (3).
This voluntary element (1) is highlighted in the ERF rules and has been reinforced in ERF II (4). 
Ta prostovoljni element (1) je poudarjen v pravilih ESB in je bil okrepljen v ESB II (4).
Likewise, the definition of eligible persons whose return to their country of origin might be funded is inadequate, as illustrated below. 
Prav tako ni ustrezna, kot je prikazano spodaj, opredelitev oseb, ki so lahko upravičene do financiranja vrnitve v izvorno državo.
Individual Member States may apply policies on the individual merits of asylum claims, that is, not based on the country of origin. 
Posamezne države članice lahko uporabijo politike glede na vsebino posameznih prošenj za azil, torej ne na podlagi izvorne države.
Positive examples of ERF management 37. 
Pozitivni primeri vodenja ESB 37.
Despite problems in the set-up and management of the ERF, there were numerous examples of good management systems. 
Kljub težavam pri vzpostavitvi in vodenju ESB je bilo veliko pozitivnih primerov dobrih sistemov vodenja.
Monitoring and remedial action by the Commission had insufficient results 38. 
Rezultati spremljanja in popravnih ukrepov Komisije niso bili zadostni 38.
The Member States are responsible for the selection, financial management and administration of projects. 
Države članice so odgovorne za izbor, finančno poslovodenje in upravljanje projektov.
The Council Decision is intended to provide Member States with the necessary freedom to implement the programme according to their needs. 
Namen Odločbe Sveta je zagotoviti državam članicam svobodo, ki jo potrebujejo, da lahko program izvajajo v skladu s svojimi potrebami.
In the first instance, Member States are required to take responsibility for the financial control of an action. 
Države članice so v prvi vrsti odgovorne za finančno kontrolo dejavnosti.
In particular, they must ensure that the funds are used in accordance with the principle of sound financial management. 
Zlasti morajo zagotoviti, da je poraba sredstev skladna z načelom dobrega finančnega poslovodenja.
In spite of that, the Commission itself is charged with ensuring that Member States have smoothly functioning management and control systems so as to make certain that Community funds are efficiently and correctly used. 
Vseeno pa je Komisija dolžna zagotoviti, da imajo države članice sisteme vodenja in kontroliranja, ki nemoteno delujejo, da se zagotovi učinkovita in pravilna poraba sredstev Skupnosti.
(3) The European Council on Refugees and Exiles distinguishes between voluntary, mandatory and forced return: Ôit is important to distinguish between voluntary repatriation of persons who freely choose to exercise their right to return to their country of origin or habitual residence and those who do not have a legal basis for remaining and consent to returnŐ. 
(3) Evropski svet za begunce in izgnance razlikuje med prostovoljno, obvezno in prisilno vrnitvijo: pomembno je, da se razlikuje med prostovoljno vrnitvijo oseb, ki se svobodno odločijo, da bodo uresničile svojo pravico do vrnitve v izvorno državo ali državo običajnega prebivališča, ter tistimi, ki nimajo pravne podlage za to, da bi ostali v novi državi, in privolijo v vrnitev.
European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Statement on Justice and Home Affairs Council 12Đ13 October 2005, p. 
Evropski svet za begunce in izg-nance, izjava Sveta za pravosodje in notranje zadeve, 12.–13. oktober 2005, str.
(4) Article 4(1) of Decision 2004/904/EC. 
(4) Člen 4(1) Odločbe 2004/904/ES.
In the United Kingdom, failed asylum seekers from Central European countries such as the Czech Republic and Poland, who had sought asylum before EU accession, accounted for the highest numbers of persons whose return flights were funded by the ERF in 2003 (i.e. 332 Czech nationals and 125 Polish nationals). 
V Združenem kraljestvu je bila večina oseb, ki jim je ESB v letu 2003 financiral letalske vozovnice za povratek, neuspešnih prosilcev za azil iz srednjeevropskih držav, kot sta Češka in Poljska, ki so zaprosili za azil pred pristopom k EU (in sicer 332 čeških in 125 poljskih državljanov).
Germany and Sweden introduced a well thought-out management system, including procedures, forms and reports, which allowed the national authority to handle a large number of projects. 
Nemčija in Švedska sta uvedli dobro zamišljen sistem vodenja, vključno s postopki, obrazci in poročili, kar je državnim organom omogočilo, da so obdelali številne projekte.
In addition, close monitoring of the projects ensured timely support to final beneficiaries. 
Poleg tega je natančno spremljanje projektov zagotovilo pravočasno podporo končnim upravičencem.
Germany and Sweden applied the stricter interpretation of eligible groups, and only funded recognised refugees who were permitted to reside in one of the Member States but who had decided to return to their home countries. 
Nemčija in Švedska sta uporabljali strožjo razlago upravičenih skupin in sta financirali samo priznane begunce, ki so imeli dovoljenje za prebivanje v eni od držav članic, vendar so se odločili, da se vrnejo v domačo državo.
In contrast, the United Kingdom and Italy mainly used the repatriation measure to fund failed and rejected asylum seekers, excluding those who had been granted indefinite leave to remain or refugee status. 
Nasprotno pa sta Združeno kraljestvo in Italija uporabljala ukrep vračanja v izvorno državo za financiranje neuspešnih in zavrnjenih prosilcev za azil, izključila pa tiste, ki jim je bilo odobreno neomejeno dovoljenje za nadaljnje bivanje ali status begunca.
(1) Article 4(4) of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(1) Člen 4(4) Odločbe 2000/596/ES.
(2) Preamble 7 of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(2) Uvodna izjava 7 Odločbe 2000/596/ES.
31.7.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/9 39. 
31.7.2007 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 178/9 39.
Overall, the Commission carried out monitoring visits for ERF I but could not always ensure sound management practices in all Member States. 
Na splošno je Komisija za ESB I izvedla spremljevalne obiske, vendar ni mogla vedno zagotoviti praks dobrega vodenja v vseh državah članicah.
According to ERF II (1), the Commission is to carry out regular monitoring in co-operation with the Member States, including evaluating the impact of actions and their complementarity with other Community instruments. 
V skladu z ESB II (1) mora Komisija opravljati redno spremljanje v sodelovanju z državami članicami, vključno z vrednotenjem učinka dejavnosti in njihove skladnosti z drugimi instrumenti Skupnosti.
In the light of the projects it visited, the Court can state that the ERF produced some positive changes in national efforts, mainly with regard to testing innovatory projects and integrating their results into national strategies. 
Glede na projekte, s katerimi se je seznanilo, lahko Sodišče navede, da je ESB povzročil nekaj pozitivnih sprememb pri prizadevanjih držav, večinoma v zvezi s preizkušanjem inovativnih projektov in vključevanju njihovih rezultatov v nacionalne strategije.
One successful United Kingdom project concerned a one-to-one refugee mentoring scheme, whereby volunteer mentors, who are nationals of the host country assist refugees to adapt and integrate into the society of the country granting them asylum. 
Eden od uspešnih projektov v Združenem kraljestvu je vključeval individualni sistem mentorstva za begunce, pri katerem mentorji prostovoljci, državljani države gostiteljice, beguncem pomagajo pri prilagajanju in vključevanju v družbo države, ki jim je odobrila azil.
A personal integration scheme was designed which included language training, getting to know the city of residence and persons outside the refugee community, learning how to handle administrative issues and assistance with finding employment. 
Oblikoval se je osebni sistem vključevanja, ki je zajemal tudi učenje jezika, spoznavanje mesta pre-bivanja in oseb zunaj skupnosti beguncev, usposabljanje za reševanje upravnih zadev in pomoč pri iskanju zaposlitve.
The project is now being financed with national funds In the United Kingdom the Court detected serious shortcomings (e.g. an inadequate audit trail on project selection, insufficient monitoring of projects). 
Projekt se zdaj financira z nacionalnimi sredstvi. V Združenem kraljestvu je Sodišče opazilo resne pomanjkljivosti (npr. neustrezna revizijska sled pri izboru projektov, nezadostno spremljanje projektov).
Prior to the CourtŐs audit in early 2005, the Commission had carried out one monitoring visit in 2002 and one ex post audit in 2003. 
Pred revizijo Sodišča v začetku leta 2005 je Komisija leta 2002 izvedla en spremljevalni obisk in leta 2003 eno naknadno revizijo.
As already discovered by the Commission during a monitoring visit to Austria, certain core tasks of the management of the ERF actions had been delegated by the national authority to a private company. 
Kot je med spremljevalnim obiskom v Avstriji že ugotovila Komisija, je nacionalni organ določene temeljne naloge vodenja dejavnosti ESB prenesel na zasebno podjetje.
This is not in conformity with the Financial Regulation as regards delegation of tasks to third parties. 
To glede prenosa nalog na tretje osebe ni v skladu s Finančno uredbo.
The corrective action recommended by the Commission was implemented late. 
Popravni ukrepi, ki jih je priporočila Komisija, so bili izvedeni pozno.
Italy launched one public call for proposals in four years. 
Italija je v štirih letih organizirala en javni razpis za predložitev predlogov.
Furthermore it was restricted to municipalities, thus excluding other potential applicants from taking part in the ERF. 
Poleg tega je bil ta omejen na občine, s čimer je bila drugim možnim prosilcem onemogočena udeležba pri ESB.
WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF THE ERF ON NATIONAL EFFORTS IN THE AREA OF ASYLUM? 
KAKŠEN JE BIL VPLIV ESB NA NACIONALNA PRIZADEVANJA NA PODROČJU AZILA?
The CourtŐs aim was to analyse whether the creation of the ERF had resulted in a change in national spending in the area of asylum. 
Namen Sodišča je bil analizirati, ali se je zaradi vzpostavitve ESB spremenila nacionalna poraba na področju azila.
However, information was limited, both in the Member States and at the Commission. 
Vendar pa so bile informacije v državah članicah in pri Komisiji omejene.
This was partly due to the fact that most Member States did not have specific budget lines for expenditure on refugees or asylum seekers in their national budgets. 
Deloma se je to zgodilo zato, ker večina držav članic v nacionalnih proračunih ni imela posebnih proračunskih vrstic za odhodke za begunce ali prosilce za azil.
It was thus not possible to draw a final conclusion on this point. 
Zato o tem ni bilo mogoče oblikovati končnega zaključka.
The mid-term evaluation (2) did not examine the additionality of the Fund, but focused instead on how far Member States had co-financed the individual ERF projects. 
Pri vmesnem vrednotenju (2) ni bila preverjena dodatnost Sklada, osredotočilo se je namreč na to, v kolikšnem obsegu so države članice sofinancirale posamezne projekte ESB.
The final report has not been examined as it had not been adopted at the time the audit was carried out. 
Končno poročilo ni bilo pregledano, ker do opravljanja revizije še ni bilo sprejeto.
Some indicators of the impact of actions with regard to persons concerned by the three measures were available, but they were not monitored systematically. 
Na voljo so bili nekateri kazalniki učinka dejavnosti v zvezi z osebami, ki so jih zadevali navedeni trije ukrepi, vendar niso bili sistematično spremljani.
Similarly, the Commission used Eurostat data on refugees for analysis purposes, but did not systematically compare them with data received from the Member States. 
Podobno je Komisija za analizo uporabljala podatke Eurostata o beguncih, vendar jih ni sistematično primerjala s podatki, prejetimi od držav članic.
(1) Article 27 of Decision 2004/904/EC. 
(1) Člen 27 Odločbe 2004/904/ES.
(2) Justice and Home Affairs DG, Mid-term Evaluation of the European Refugee Fund, Final Report, December 2003. 
(2) Generalni direktorat za pravosodje in notranje zadeve, Vmesno vrednotenje Evropskega sklada za begunce, končno poročilo, december 2003.
In other cases the ERF had a positive effect on national asylum policy, as it triggered the creation ex novo of national programmes. 
V drugih primerih je imel ESB pozitiven učinek na nacionalno azilno politiko, saj je povzročil ponovno oblikovanje nacionalnih programov.
CONCLUSION 45. 
ZAKLJUČEK 45.
The European Refugee Fund allocated its resources according to statistical data. 
Evropski sklad za begunce je svoja sredstva dodeljeval glede na statistične podatke.
The Court found that these data were not complete, consistent, comparable and reliable. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da ti podatki niso bili popolni, dosledni, primerljivi ali zanesljivi.
It took the Commission until 2005, after several years of preparatory actions, to propose a regulation on the harmonisation of statistics (see paragraphs 20 to 22). 
Komisija je šele leta 2005, po več letih pripravljalnih dejavnosti, predlagala uredbo o uskladitvi statističnih podatkov (glej odstavke 20 do 22).
Certain implementing rules were published late by the Commission, leaving the Member States without clear instructions in the start-up phase of the ERF. 
Komisija je pozno objavila določena pravila o izvajanju in tako države članice v začetni fazi ESB pustila brez jasnih navodil.
The cumbersome administrative process for the allocation of funds led to payment delays in the Member States (see paragraphs 26 to 33). 
Okoren upravni postopek za dodeljevanje sredstev je v državah članicah povzročil zamude pri plačilih (glej odstavke 26 do 33).
The Council Decision lacked clarity in defining the ERF key terms (e.g. eligible target groups or fundable measures, see paragraphs 34 to 36). 
Odločba Sveta ni bila dovolj jasna pri opredelitvi ključnih pojmov ESB (npr. upravičene ciljne skupine ali ukrepi, ki jih je mogoče podpreti, glej odstavke 34 do 36).
The Commission did not always guide Member States to help them avoid ambiguities in the interpretation of the rules. 
Komisija ni vedno dala navodil državam članicam, da bi jim pomagala izogniti se ne-jasnostim pri razlaganju pravil.
Although no systematic misuse of the rules was observed, they were not applied in an equal way by the Member States. 
Čeprav sistematična napačna uporaba pravil ni bila ugotovljena, jih države članice niso uporabljale na enak način.
The Commission could not always ensure sound management practices in the Member States (see paragraph 39). 
Komisija ni mogla vedno zagotoviti praks dobrega vodenja v državah članicah (glej odstavek 39).
There were limited data available on the impact of the ERF on national efforts in the area of asylum (see paragraphs 40 to 42). 
Podatki, ki so bili na voljo glede vpliva ESB na nacionalna prizadevanja na področju azila, so bili omejeni (glej odstavke 40 do 42).
The Italian National Asylum Programme was made possible thanks to ERF co-funding, and aims to receive and assist asylum seekers and refugees throughout the national territory. 
Italijanski nacionalni program za azil je bil omogočen s sofinanciranjem ESB, cilj tega programa pa je sprejemati prosilce za azil in begunce na celotnem nacionalnem ozemlju ter jim pomagati.
It was initiated by the Ministry of the Interior, UNHCR and the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI). 
Sprožili so ga Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve, UNHCR in Nacionalno združenje italijanskih občin (ANCI).
C 178/10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2007 50. 
C 178/10 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 31.7.2007 50.
The result of the final report could not be taken into consideration as it had not been adopted at the time the audit was carried out (see paragraphs 16 and 41). 
Rezultatov končnega poročila ni bilo mogoče upoštevati, ker do opravljanja revizije še ni bilo sprejeto (glej odstavka 16 in 41).
RECOMMENDATIONS 51. 
PRIPOROČILA 51.
The Commission should continue its efforts to harmonise the statistical data. 
Komisija bi si morala še naprej prizadevati za uskladitev statističnih podatkov.
Whilst harmonising the statistical data, the Commission should lay down measures to allow the verification of data. 
Med usklajevanjem statističnih podatkov bi morala Komisija določiti ukrepe, ki bodo omogočili preverjanje podatkov.
The Commission has revised the statistical data. 
Komisija je spremenila nekatere statistične podatke.
If the Commission cannot guarantee that the statistics are reliable and that the allocation of funds is in proportion to the number of refugees and asylum seekers received, other ways of allocating the funds, such as fixed amounts, should be considered. 
Če Komisija ne more zagotoviti, da so statistični podatki zanesljivi ter da je dodelitev sredstev sorazmerna s številom sprejetih beguncev in prosilcev za azil, bi bilo treba razmisliti o drugih načinih dodeljevanja sredstev, na primer stalnih zneskih.
The CourtŐs audit has shown that some of the provisions of ERF I, in particular the eligibility rules, were open to significant differences of interpretation. 
Revizija Sodišča je pokazala, da je bilo nekatere določbe ESB I, zlasti pravila o upravičenosti, mogoče razlagati precej različno.
The Court recommends that the Commission, the Parliament and the Council should consider, in the light of the CourtŐs findings and the changes already made in ERF II, whether they wish the ERF to be more clearly and precisely targeted for the future. 
Sodišče priporoča Komisiji, Parlamentu in Svetu, naj glede na ugotovitve Sodišča in že opravljene spremembe v ESB II raz-mislijo, ali želijo, da je ESB v prihodnosti jasneje in natančneje ciljno usmerjen.
This Report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 21 March 2007. 
To poročilo je sprejelo Računsko sodišče v Luxembourgu na svojem zasedanju 21. marca 2007.
31.7.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union ANNEX I Comparison of Community regulations for the 2000 to 2004 European Refugee Fund period (ERF I) and the 2005 to 2010 period (ERF II) INTRODUCTION This comparison is based on the following documents: Ń Council Decision 2000/596/EC of 28 September 2000, Ń Commission Decision 2001/275/EC of 20 March 2001, Ń Commission Decision 2002/307/EC of 18 December 2001, Ń Council Decision 2004/904/EC of 2 December 2004, Ń Explanatory Memorandum and proposal for a Council Decision SEC 2004/161 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005 to 2010, Ń Extended Impact Assessment. 
31.7.2007 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 178/11 PRILOGA I Primerjava predpisov Skupnosti glede Evropskega sklada za begunce za obdobje 2000–2004 (ESB I) in za obdobje 2005–2010 (ESB II) UVOD Ta primerjava temelji na naslednjih dokumentih: — Odločba Sveta 2000/596/ES z dne 28. septembra 2000, — Odločba Komisije 2001/275/ES z dne 20. marca 2001, — Odločba Komisije 2002/307/ES z dne 18. decembra 2001, — Odločba Sveta 2004/904/ES z dne 2. decembra 2004, — Obrazložitveni memorandum in predlog Odločbe Sveta SEC(2004) 161 o ustanovitvi Evropskega sklada za begunce za obdobje od 2005 do 2010, — Razširjena ocena učinka.
Commission Staff Working paper, SEC (2004) 161, 12.2.2004. 
Delovni dokument služb Komisije, SEC(2004) 161, 12.2.2004.
The following comparison highlights only the main differences between ERF I and ERF II. 
V naslednji primerjavi so poudarjene samo glavne razlike med ESB I in ESB II.
C 178/11 I. OBJECTIVES AND TASKS Objective Time period Target groups Programming The 2000 to 2004 programme The 2005 to 2010 programme The European Refugee Fund is a financial instrument, the prime objective of which is to support and encourage the efforts made by the Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons. 
I. CILJI IN NALOGE Cilj Obdobje Ciljne skupine Načrtovanje programov Program za obdobje 2000–2004 Program za obdobje 2005–2010 Evropski sklad za begunce je finančni instrument, katerega glavni cilj je podpirati in spodbujati prizadevanja držav članic glede sprejemanja beguncev in razseljenih oseb ter posledic v zvezi s tem.
5 years, from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2004. 
5 let, od 1. januarja 2000 do 31. decembra 2004.
Five target groups: 1. 
Pet ciljnih skupin: 1.
Geneva convention 2. international protection granted by a MS 3. persons who have applied for protection cf. points 1 or 2 4. temporary protection in a MS 5. persons whose right to temporary protection is being examined in a MS. 
Ženevska konvencija 2. mednarodna zaščita, ki jo odobri država članica 3. osebe, ki so zaprosile za zaščito iz točke 1ali2 4. začasna zaščita v državi članici 5. osebe, katerih pravica do začasne zaščite je v obravnavi v državi članici.
(Article 3, 2000/596/EC) No multiannual programmes, annual appropriations. 
(Člen 3, 2000/596/ES) Ni večletnih programov, proračunska sredstva dodeljena letno.
6 years, from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010. 
6 let, od 1. januarja 2005 do 31. decembra 2010.
Four target groups: 1. 
Štiri ciljne skupine: 1.
Geneva convention 2. subsidiary protection within the meaning of Council Directive 2004/83/EC 3. persons who have applied for protection cf. points 1 or 2 4. temporary protection within the meaning of Directive 2001/55/EC (temporary protection/mass influx). 
Ženevska konvencija 2. subsidiarna zaščita v smislu Direktive Sveta 2004/83/ES 3. osebe, ki so zaprosile za zaščito iz točke 1ali2 4. začasna zaščita v smislu Direktive 2001/55/ES (začasna zaščita/množični prihod).
(Article 3, 2004/904/EC) Multiannual programming for two three-year periods. 
(Člen 3, 2004/904/ES) Večletno načrtovanje programov za dve triletni obdobji.
For each programme phase, the Member States have to present multiannual programmes to the Commission. 
Države članice morajo Komisiji predstaviti večletne programe za vsako programsko fazo.
(Article 15, 2004/904/EC) 
(Člen 15, 2004/904/ES)
C 178/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2007 Actions There are three different types of measures by the Member States: condition of reception, integration, and repatriation. 
C 178/12 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 31.7.2007 Dejavnosti Obstajajo tri različne vrste ukrepov držav članic: sprejem, vključevanje in vračanje v izvorno državo.
Reception Ń infrastructure or services for accommodation, Ń supply of material aid, Ń health care, Ń social assistance, Ń help with administrative and judicial formalities, incl. legal assistance. 
Sprejem: — infrastruktura ali storitve v zvezi z na-stanitvijo — zagotavljanje materialne pomoči — zdravstveno varstvo — socialna pomoč — pomoč pri reševanju upravnih in sodnih formalnosti, vključno s pravno pomočjo.
Integration Ń social assistance in the area of housing, means of subsistence and health care, Ń actions to enable beneficiaries to adjust to the society or to provide for themselves. 
Vključevanje: — socialna pomoč na področju nastanitve, sredstev za preživetje in zdravstvenega varstva — dejavnosti, ki upravičencem omogoči-jo, da se prilagodijo družbi ali se preživ-ljajo sami.
Repatriation Ń information and advice about voluntary return programmes and the situation in the country of origin, Ń general or vocational training and help in resettlement. 
Vračanje v izvorno državo: — informacije in svetovanje o programih za prostovoljno vračanje ter razmerah v izvorni državi — splošno ali poklicno usposabljanje in pomoč pri preselitvi.
(Article 4, 2000/596/EC) The eligible actions concern the following areas: studies, exchanges of experience and steps to promote cooperation, assessment of the implementation of measures and technical assistance. 
(Člen 4, 2000/596/ES) Upravičene dejavnosti zadevajo naslednja področja: študije, izmenjavo izkušenj in ukrepe za pospeševanje sodelovanja, presojo izvajanja ukrepov in tehnično pomoč.