natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With respect to the ‘comply-or-explain’ principle, the letter from the Vice-President of the Commission to the Ombudsman referred to in paragraph 67 explained that a strict parallel between the independent advisory EFB and the national independent fiscal councils cannot be drawn as the underlying legal bases, the institutional set-up, roles, functioning and powers are different (see Commission reply to paragraph 61). 
Kar zadeva načelo „upoštevaj ali pojasni“, je v dopisu podpredsednika Komisije Evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic iz odstavka 67 pojasnjeno, da ni mogoče potegniti stroge vzporednice med neodvisnim svetovalnim Evropskim fiskalnim odborom in nacionalnimi neodvisnimi fiskalnimi sveti, saj so njihove osnovne pravne podlage, institucionalne ureditve, vloge, delovanje in pooblastila različni (glej odgovor Komisije na odstavek 61).
At national level, according to the TSCG, signatory Member States have put in place independent institutions to monitor whether national policies ensure rapid convergence towards the country-specific medium-term objective. 
Države članice podpisnice so na nacionalni ravni v skladu s PSUU ustanovile neodvisne institucije za spremljanje, ali nacionalne politike zagotavljajo hitro približevanje srednjeročnemu proračunskemu cilju, prilagojenemu posamezni državi.
68 See Commission reply to paragraph 60. 
68 Glej odgovor Komisije na odstavek 60.
Concerning the issue of independence, Commission Decision 2015/1937 (Article 4) includes an explicit provision regarding independence of the Board members. 
Kar zadeva vprašanje neodvisnosti, Sklep Komisije (EU) 2015/1937 (člen 4) vključuje izrecno določbo o neodvisnosti članov odbora.
69 Different legal instruments may be used to lay down requirements which differ in terms of level of prescriptiveness and leeway given to the Member States. 
69 Za določitev zahtev, ki se razlikujejo glede stopnje preskriptivnosti in manevrskega prostora, omogočenega državam članicam, se lahko uporabijo različni pravni instrumenti.
Specifically regarding Directive 2011/85, in the course of its preparation it became clear that a Council Directive was the most suitable vehicle for legislating for the first time in the area of NBFs, which touches on the sovereign fiscal competences of the Member States. 
Zlasti v zvezi z Direktivo 2011/85/EU je med njeno pripravo postalo jasno, da je bila direktiva Sveta najprimernejši instrument za sprejetje prve zakonodaje na področju nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov, ki je povezano s suverenimi fiskalnimi pristojnostmi držav članic.
The choice was mainly predicated on the specific nature of provisions to be included in the legislative proposal (against very diverse NBF baselines in the Member States at the time), the competences it touches upon and the need to take into account national ownership and subsidiarity principle considerations (see also the Commission reply to paragraph 19). 
Izbira je bila odvisna zlasti od posebne narave določb, ki jih je bilo treba vključiti v zakonodajni predlog (glede na takrat zelo različne podlage nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov v državah članicah), pristojnosti, ki jih zadeva, ter potrebe po upoštevanju premislekov glede nacionalne odgovornosti in subsidiarnosti (glej tudi odgovor Komisije na odstavek 19).
The Commission also points out that this step only became politically possible in the wake of the crisis and, as a first legislative foray in the NBF area, an overly prescriptive approach in the Commission proposal would very likely not have been deemed acceptable by the Member States, thereby risking to put into question the adoption of any legal provisions on NBFs. 
Komisija poudarja tudi, da je ta korak postal politično mogoč šele zaradi krize in da se državam članicam preveč preskriptivni pristop v predlogu Komisije kot prvem ukrepu na področju nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov zelo verjetno ne bi zdel sprejemljiv, s čimer bi bilo postavljeno pod vprašaj sprejetje kakršnih koli pravnih določb o nacionalnih proračunskih okvirih.
74 The Commission stresses that transposition and conformity checks have been very thorough to ensure that requirements are fully and correctly taken up in the national NBF legislation. 
74 Komisija poudarja, da sta bila preverjanje prenosa in preverjanje skladnosti zelo temeljita, da bi se zagotovilo popolno in pravilno upoštevanje zahtev v nacionalni zakonodaji o nacionalnih proračunskih okvirih.
The national transposition processes themselves took considerable more time than envisaged. 
Nacionalni postopki prenosa so trajali precej dlje, kot je bilo predvideno.
The adoption of further NBF requirements (see paragraph 72) induced delays for the Member States beyond the transposition deadline set for the Directive (e.g. some national implementing measures were notified during 2014-2016, and a few even later). 
Države članice so zaradi sprejetja dodatnih zahtev za nacionalne proračunske okvire (glej odstavek 72) zamudile rok za prenos, določen za Direktivo (npr. nekateri nacionalni ukrepi za prenos so bili priglašeni v obdobju 2014– 2016, nekaj pa jih je bilo priglašenih celo pozneje).
Regarding the checks conducted by the Commission, apart from the complexity of analysing thoroughly a whole raft of NBF legislation in place in the Member States, during the abovementioned period a significant amount of effort also went into assessing the compliance of national legal provisions of 22 TSCG Contracting Parties with the Fiscal Compact requirements (as per the invitation made to the Commission in Art. 16 TSCG). 
SL SL Kar zadeva preverjanja, ki jih je izvedla Komisija, je bilo poleg zapletene temeljite analize najrazličnejših zakonodaj o nacionalnih proračunskih okvirih, vzpostavljenih v državah članicah, v zgoraj navedenem obdobju veliko truda vloženega tudi v oceno skladnosti nacionalnih zakonskih določb 22 pogodbenic PSUU z zahtevami iz fiskalnega dogovora (v skladu s pozivom Komisiji v členu 16 PSUU).
Finally, the process of compliance checking involved extensive bilateral exchanges with the Member States (primarily via the EU Pilot process) aiming to remedy the transposition gaps and non-conformity issues identified by the Commission. 
Nazadnje, postopek preverjanja skladnosti je vključeval obsežne dvostranske izmenjave z državami članicami (zlasti prek postopka EU Pilot), katerih namen je bil odpraviti vrzeli pri prenosu in težave z neskladnostjo, ki jih je opredelila Komisija.
While these exchanges have been very effective, the corrective actions taken by the Member States in turn generated further delays in completing the conformity checks. 
Te izmenjave so bile zelo učinkovite, vendar so zaradi popravnih ukrepov, ki so jih sprejele države članice, nato nastale še večje zamude pri dokončanju preverjanj skladnosti.
As regards the targets set in DG ECFIN’s Annual Management Plans, it should be noted that they refer only to the preliminary conformity checks, i.e. the basis for the EU Pilots. 
Kar zadeva cilje iz letnega načrta upravljanja GD za gospodarske in finančne zadeve, bi bilo treba opozoriti, da se nanašajo le na predhodna preverjanja skladnosti, tj. na podlago za postopke EU Pilot.
In some cases, this was due to the reason explained above. 
V nekaterih primerih je bilo to iz razloga, opisanega zgoraj.
76 On deciding the sequencing of EU Pilots for a Directive which establishes minimum requirements for NBFs of all Member States, the Commission considers that the more operational criteria it used (as indicated in paragraph 76) were more appropriate from an equal treatment point of view than those cited by ECA (namely, the level of public debt and membership of euro area). 
76 Komisija glede zaporedja postopkov EU Pilot za direktivo, ki določa minimalne zahteve za nacionalne proračunske okvire vseh držav članic, meni, da so bila bolj operativna merila, ki jih je uporabila (kot je navedeno v odstavku 76), z vidika enakovredne obravnave primernejša od tistih, ki jih je navedlo Evropsko računsko sodišče (tj. raven javnega dolga in članstvo v euroobmočju).
The Commission points out that half of the high-debt euro area Member States were in fact covered among the 18 Member States that were included in the first and second waves of EU Pilots. 
Komisija poudarja, da je bila polovica visoko zadolženih držav članic euroobmočja dejansko med 18 državami članicami, vključenimi v postopke EU Pilot v prvem in drugem krogu.
78 The Commission stresses that the EU Pilot exchanges have been instrumental for the conformity checks. 
78 Komisija poudarja, da so bile izmenjave v okviru postopkov EU Pilot ključne za preverjanja skladnosti.
They enabled to form a definitive view on conformity for the 18 Member States concerned by the first two waves and, on that basis, either conclude on conform transposition or consider the need for launching infringement proceedings where Pilot replies were rejected as unsatisfactory. 
Omogočile so oblikovanje dokončnega mnenja o skladnosti za 18 držav članic, vključenih v prva dva kroga, in s tem sprejetje zaključka o skladnem prenosu ali proučitev potrebe po uvedbi postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev v primerih, ko so bili odgovori v okviru postopka EU Pilot zavrnjeni kot nezadovoljivi.
It should be noted that the 10 weeks for each side involved in the EU Pilot (i.e. the Commission and the Member State concerned) represent a benchmark. 
Opozoriti bi bilo treba, da je 10 tednov za vsako stran, vključeno v postopek EU Pilot (tj. Komisijo in zadevno državo članico), referenčno merilo.
The overall duration of a Pilot case may be longer in practice for a variety of reasons, such as: (i) request for an extension from the Member State, (ii) request for additional information from the Commission; (iii) time necessary for translation of Member States replies and submissions, and (iv) reporting of follow-up measures by the Member State. 
Skupno trajanje zadeve v okviru postopka EU Pilot je lahko v praksi daljše iz različnih razlogov, kot so: (i) zahtevek države članice za podaljšanje roka, (ii) zahtevek Komisije za dodatne informacije, (iii) čas, potreben za prevod odgovorov in predložitev države članice, ter (iv) dodatni ukrepi, ki jih sporoči država članica.
Some or all of the above situations were encountered in all the 18 cases, which explains in part the long span of the exchanges with the Member States. 
V vseh 18 zadevah so se pojavile nekatere ali vse take situacije, kar delno pojasni dolgotrajnost izmenjav z državami članicami.
In particular, it should be noted that in all those Pilot cases the Commission requested additional information. 
Zlasti bi bilo treba opozoriti, da je Komisija v vseh navedenih zadevah v okviru postopka EU Pilot zahtevala dodatne informacije.
The Commission services involved (i.e. DG ECFIN) adopted a constructive conduct during the EU Pilot exchanges, especially by giving Member States all the necessary assistance and allowing time for some committed measures to be adopted. 
Vključene službe Komisije (npr. GD za gospodarske in finančne zadeve) so med izmenjavami v okviru postopkov EU Pilot ravnale konstruktivno, zlasti tako, da so državam članicam zagotovile vso potrebno pomoč in omogočile čas za sprejetje nekaterih predvidenih ukrepov.
This lengthened the formal duration of the Pilot cases beyond the benchmarks, but the relevance of this delay is clearly outweighed by the positive outcome of the process: only 7 out of the 18 cases were closed with a rejection, and the outstanding issues in 6 out of those 7 cases have subsequently been settled satisfactorily by the Member States concerned, without the Commission needing to launch infringement proceedings. 
Zaradi tega je formalno trajanje zadev v okviru postopka EU Pilot preseglo referenčna merila, vendar pozitiven rezultat postopka očitno odtehta pomembnost te zamude: le sedem od 18 zadev je bilo zaključenih z zavrnitvijo, nerešena vprašanja v šestih od navedenih sedmih zadev pa so zadevne države članice pozneje zadovoljivo rešile, ne da bi bilo treba Komisiji uvesti postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev.
79 Common reply to paragraphs 79 and 80: With hindsight, the Commission acknowledges that it may have underestimated the challenges associated with the national transposition of the Directive, to a certain extent. 
79 Skupni odgovor na odstavka 79 in 80: 10 SL SL Komisija po ponovnem premisleku priznava, da je morda nekoliko podcenila izzive, povezane z nacionalnim prenosom Direktive.
An important reason behind the Member States’ delay in notifying transposing measures was that they also had to incorporate in the national legal order the additional NBF requirements stemming from Regulation 473/2013 and the Fiscal Compact. 
Pomemben razlog za zamudo držav članic pri priglasitvi ukrepov za prenos je bil, da so morale v nacionalni pravni red vključiti tudi dodatne zahteve za nacionalne proračunske okvire, ki izhajajo iz Uredbe (EU) št. 473/2013 in fiskalnega dogovora.
In particular, the latter required passing legislation with high legal force in the national legal hierarchy, sometimes even at constitutional level. 
Zlasti zaradi slednjega je bilo treba sprejeti zakonodajo z veliko pravno veljavo v nacionalni pravni hierarhiji, včasih celo na ustavni ravni.
Member States were therefore slower in adopting and notifying the Directive-related measures, leading to the launch of non-communication infringement procedures. 
Države članice so bile zato počasnejše pri sprejemanju in priglasitvi ukrepov, povezanih z Direktivo, kar je vodilo do uvedbe postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev zaradi nesporočanja.
The Commission points out that it provided guidance and support on NBFs both before and after the Directive’s transposition deadline of 31 December 2013. 
Komisija je poudarila, da je smernice in podporo v zvezi z nacionalnimi proračunskimi okviri zagotovila pred rokom za prenos Direktive 31. decembra 2013 in tudi po njem.
This was done via several means and channels, in particular topic-specific guidance documents (e.g. on statistical requirements, information on tax expenditure), notes to the relevant committees, background papers for peer reviews on NBFs, review of draft national legislation transposing the Directive (including before 31 December 2013), EU Pilot procedures (as of August 2016), and other bilateral technical exchanges. 
To je storila na več načinov in prek več kanalov, zlasti s smernicami o specifičnih temah (npr. o statističnih zahtevah ali informacijah o davčnih izdatkih), z dopisi ustreznim odborom, informativnimi dokumenti o nacionalnih proračunskih okvirih za medsebojne preglede, pregledom osnutka nacionalne zakonodaje za prenos Direktive (tudi pred 31. decembrom 2013), postopki EU Pilot (od avgusta 2016) in z drugimi dvostranskimi tehničnimi izmenjavami.
Moreover, the Commission has always responded favourably to any specific request for assistance addressed to it by the Member States. 
Poleg tega se je Komisija vedno pozitivno odzvala na vsako posebno zahtevo za pomoč, ki jo je nanjo naslovila država članica.
When assessing the full extent of guidance on NBFs provided by the Commission to the Member States, one has to consider that Member States overhauled their fiscal frameworks by taking into account not just the Directive requirements, but also obligations stemming from Regulation 473/2013 and the Fiscal Compact, as applicable. 
Pri ocenjevanju celotnega obsega smernic o nacionalnih proračunskih okvirih, ki jih je Komisija posredovala državam članicam, je treba upoštevati, da so države članice preoblikovale svoje fiskalne okvire, pri čemer niso upoštevale le zahtev iz Direktive, temveč tudi obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz Uredbe (EU) št. 473/2013 in fiskalnega dogovora, kot je primerno.
Therefore, when reviewing draft national legislation and providing comments, the Commission also factored in the broader set of supranational NBF requirements to which Member States need to abide by. 
Zato je Komisija pri pregledu osnutka nacionalne zakonodaje in zagotavljanju pripomb upoštevala tudi obsežnejši sklop nadnacionalnih zahtev za nacionalne proračunske okvire, ki jih morajo države članice spoštovati.
In its Treaty role of monitoring the application of EU law, the Commission has indeed prioritised so far ensuring that the features of reformed NBFs are in line with the new requirements of Union law, as they prompted significant reforms of NBFs across the EU. 
Komisija je v svoji vlogi spremljanja uporabe prava EU na podlagi Pogodbe do zdaj dejansko dajala prednost zagotavljanju, da so elementi reformiranih nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov v skladu z novimi zahtevami prava Unije, saj so spodbudili pomembne reforme nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov po vsej EU.
Given the forthcoming completion of the conformity checks for Directive 2011/85, the Commission’s focus will shift towards the implementation of NBFs, including as appropriate the provision of support and guidance. 
Ker bodo preverjanja skladnosti z Direktivo 2011/85/EU kmalu zaključena, bo Komisija pozornost preusmerila na izvajanje nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov, kar bo po potrebi vključevalo zagotavljanje podpore in smernic.
83 The Commission envisages to start assessing how Directive 2011/85 is applied after concluding the conformity checks. 
83 Komisija predvideva, da bo uporabo Direktive 2011/85/EU začela ocenjevati po zaključku preverjanj skladnosti.
While the Commission’s focus has so far been on ensuring proper transposition, implementation-related information has also been collected to get a better picture of the overall situation in the Member States. 
Čeprav se je Komisija do zdaj osredotočala na zagotavljanje ustreznega prenosa, so bile za boljšo predstavo o splošnem stanju v državah članicah zbrane tudi informacije, povezane z izvajanjem.
However, this has not been done in a systematic way and will require an across-the-board update at the time of conducting full application checks. 
Vendar se to ni izvajalo sistematično, zato bo med izvajanjem popolnih preverjanj uporabe potrebna celovita posodobitev.
84 Internal guidelines for formal application checks will be prepared before engaging in those checks. 
84 Interne smernice za formalna preverjanja uporabe bodo pripravljene pred začetkom navedenih preverjanj.
Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that on a number of Directive provisions which are more implementation-oriented than transposition-driven (e.g. statistical provisions), the internal transposition guidance actually includes elements of guidance for application checks. 
Ne glede na to bi bilo treba opozoriti, da interne smernice o prenosu v zvezi z več določbami Direktive, bolj usmerjenimi v izvajanje kot v prenos (npr. določbe o statističnih podatkih), dejansko vključujejo elemente smernic za preverjanje uporabe.
85 Common Commission reply to paragraphs 85 and 86: The Commission acknowledges the relevance of further analysis and will continue to explore ways in which useful results could be achieved. 
85 Skupni odgovor Komisije na odstavka 85 in 86: Komisija priznava pomembnost nadaljnje analize in bo še naprej proučevala načine za dosego koristnih rezultatov. 11
However, the Commission stresses that making a strict correlation between a Member State’s implementation of the Directive (which is a subset of the supranational NBF requirements) and its overall fiscal performance in relation to the SGP requirements is very challenging methodologically. 
SL SL Vendar Komisija poudarja, da je vzpostavitev tesne povezave med izvajanjem Direktive (ki je podskupina nadnacionalnih zahtev za nacionalne proračunske okvire) v državi članici in splošno fiskalno uspešnostjo države članice v zvezi z zahtevami iz Pakta za stabilnost in rast metodološko zelo zahtevna.
While assessing the degree of implementation and functioning of the Directive provisions is relatively straightforward, assessing the extent to which these requirements have affected fiscal performance is less clear, mainly because of: - high degree of overlap between certain requirements of the Directive and provisions laid down in Regulation 473/2013 and the Fiscal Compact that produced effects during the same period. - the timing of the Directive, which coincided with a deep financial and economic crisis during which several Member States were under external financial assistance programmes (most of those programmes contained conditionalities that took on board many of the Directive requirements). - the need to allow sufficient time for the Directive requirements to be applied in practice and exert their influence on the budgetary process. 
Ocenjevanje stopnje izvajanja in delovanja določb Direktive je razmeroma preprosto, ocenjevanje obsega, v katerem so te zahteve vplivale na fiskalno uspešnost, pa ni tako jasno, zlasti zaradi: – visoke stopnje prekrivanja med nekaterimi zahtevami iz Direktive ter določbami iz Uredbe (EU) št. 473/2013 in fiskalnega dogovora, ki so imele učinek v istem obdobju, – časovnega okvira Direktive, ki je sovpadal s hudo finančno in gospodarsko krizo, v kateri je bilo več držav članic vključenih v programe zunanje finančne pomoči (večina navedenih programov je vsebovala pogoje, v katerih so se upoštevale številne zahteve iz Direktive), – potrebe po zagotovitvi, da je na voljo dovolj časa za uporabo zahtev iz Direktive v praksi in za to, da te zahteve vplivajo na proračunski postopek.
86 The suitability of the PEFA methodology for assessing the operational performance of key elements of NBFs can be assessed among various options. 
86 Primernost metodologije javnih odhodkov in finančne odgovornosti za oceno operativne uspešnosti ključnih elementov nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov se lahko oceni med različnimi možnostmi.
88 The Commission underlines that there is no legal requirement to include review clauses in legislative proposals. 
88 Komisija poudarja, da ni pravne zahteve, v skladu s katero bi bilo treba v zakonodajne predloge vključiti določbe o pregledu.
89 The Commission has decided to postpone the publication of the suitability review and to publish it together with the review of other parts of the Six and Two-pack. 
89 Komisija se je odločila, da bo objavo pregleda ustreznosti preložila ter ga objavila skupaj s pregledom drugih delov zakonodajnega šesterčka in dvojčka.
This will allow the Commission to form an aggregate view on the whole EU fiscal framework, consisting of EU rules and national fiscal frameworks. 
To bo Komisiji omogočilo, da oblikuje skupen pogled na celoten fiskalni okvir EU, sestavljen iz pravil EU in nacionalnih fiskalnih okvirov.
91 The Fiscal Governance Database (FGD) and the related indices were established for a broader purpose than the assessment of requirements in EU law (incidentally, their creation predates the Directive 2011/85). 
91 Zbirka podatkov o fiskalnem upravljanju in povezani indeksi niso bili vzpostavljeni le za ocenjevanje zahtev v pravu EU (mimogrede, oblikovani so bili pred Direktivo 2011/85/EU).
The MTBF index was designed from the outset to reflect desirable features and best practices for MTBFs, thus going beyond the Directive, which sets only minimum requirements for MTBFs. 
Indeks kakovosti srednjeročnega proračunskega okvira je bil že od vsega začetka zasnovan tako, da izraža zaželene lastnosti in dobre prakse za srednjeročne proračunske okvire, s čimer presega Direktivo, ki za zadevne okvire določa le minimalne zahteve.
In fact, the Commission considers that an index taking into account only the requirements from the Directive would be of limited relevance. 
Dejansko Komisija meni, da bi bil indeks, ki bi upošteval le zahteve iz Direktive, manj pomemben.
The MTBF index was also not designed as a measure of the transposition or implementation of the Directive in the area of MTBFs. 
Indeks kakovosti srednjeročnega proračunskega okvira prav tako ni bil zasnovan kot ukrep za prenos ali izvajanje Direktive na področju srednjeročnih proračunskih okvirov.
It should be noted, however, that after the 2015 methodological review of the FGD the index criteria have been refined in light of the improvements recorded in the Member States and have been better aligned with (most of) the requirements of the Directive. 
Vendar bi bilo treba opozoriti, da so bila po metodološkem pregledu zbirke podatkov o fiskalnem upravljanju leta2015 merila glede indeksa izboljšana zaradi izboljšav, zabeleženih v državah članicah, in bolje usklajena z (večino) zahtev iz Direktive.